CompaRNA - on-line benchmarks of RNA structure prediction methods
Home

Methods
Datasets
Rankings
RNA 2D Atlas

Help
FAQ

Contact us
RSS feeds
Twitter

Table of contents:

  1. Overview

  2. Performance Plots

  3. Performance of CRWrnafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for CRWrnafold & MCFold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CRWrnafold MCFold
MCC 0.682 > 0.639
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.709 ± 0.134 > 0.611 ± 0.145
Sensitivity 0.690 > 0.670
Positive Predictive Value 0.685 > 0.621
Total TP 316 > 307
Total TN 24849 > 24816
Total FP 195 < 260
Total FP CONTRA 38 < 40
Total FP INCONS 107 < 147
Total FP COMP 50 < 73
Total FN 142 < 151
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CRWrnafold and MCFold. Positive Predictive Value (PPV) is plotted against sensitivity. Each dot represents a single test of each method. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for CRWrnafold and MCFold).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CRWrnafold and MCFold. The whiskers correspond to 95% confidence intervals (CIs). 'n' denotes the number of MCCs used to calculate average MCCs and CIs. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for CRWrnafold and MCFold).

^top





Performance of CRWrnafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CRWrnafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 316
Total TN 24849
Total FP 195
Total FP CONTRA 38
Total FP INCONS 107
Total FP COMP 50
Total FN 142
Total Scores
MCC 0.682
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.709 ± 0.134
Sensitivity 0.690
Positive Predictive Value 0.685
Nr of predictions 31

^top



2. Individual counts for CRWrnafold [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LBS_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 193 0 0 0 0 0
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
2LDL_A - 0.94 0.89 1.00 8 132 1 0 0 1 1
2LDT_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 151 0 0 0 0 0
2LHP_A - 0.96 0.93 1.00 14 247 0 0 0 0 1
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.58 0.55 0.62 16 2414 13 4 6 3 13
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2YIE_Z - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 587 15 6 9 0 8
2YIE_X - 0.53 0.57 0.50 4 536 9 1 3 5 3
3AMU_B 0.77 0.79 0.75 15 1137 8 0 5 3 4
3J0L_2 - 0.31 0.31 0.33 8 2226 23 1 15 7 18
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_a - 0.39 0.36 0.44 4 402 6 3 2 1 7
3J0L_1 - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 473 5 0 1 4 3
3J0L_h - 0.93 0.88 1.00 28 2112 0 0 0 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 506 13 3 10 0 10
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 174 4 0 2 2 2
3J16_L 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 1138 0 0 0 0 0
3SD1_A 0.63 0.66 0.61 19 1502 12 6 6 0 10
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 87 0 0 0 0 0
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 112 0 0 0 0 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 103 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
4A1C_3 0.85 0.84 0.86 31 2727 7 0 5 2 6
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 44 8 20 16 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 2 0 0 2 4

^top



Performance of MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 307
Total TN 24816
Total FP 260
Total FP CONTRA 40
Total FP INCONS 147
Total FP COMP 73
Total FN 151
Total Scores
MCC 0.639
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.611 ± 0.145
Sensitivity 0.670
Positive Predictive Value 0.621
Nr of predictions 31

^top



2. Individual counts for MCFold [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LBS_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 193 1 0 0 1 0
2LC8_A 0.44 0.44 0.47 8 511 10 0 9 1 10
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LDT_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 152 0 0 0 0 1
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 29 2411 11 0 0 11 0
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 3 0 0 3 0
2YIE_Z - 0.53 0.63 0.45 5 591 8 2 4 2 3
2YIE_X - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 535 15 1 8 6 7
3AMU_B 0.50 0.58 0.44 11 1132 15 4 10 1 8
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.27 0.25 7 2222 29 4 17 8 19
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_a - 0.14 0.18 0.15 2 398 13 1 10 2 9
3J0L_1 - 0.88 0.85 0.92 11 472 5 0 1 4 2
3J0L_h - 0.98 0.97 1.00 31 2109 2 0 0 2 1
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 504 15 6 9 0 10
3J0L_g - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 170 7 4 2 1 2
3J16_L 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1136 12 4 7 1 9
3SD1_A 0.43 0.45 0.43 13 1503 17 1 16 0 16
3SN2_B 0.58 0.58 0.64 7 143 4 0 4 0 5
3TRZ_Z - -0.05 0.00 0.00 0 88 4 0 4 0 5
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 112 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - -0.05 0.00 0.00 0 102 7 0 6 1 5
3U4M_B - 0.74 0.77 0.71 17 1252 10 1 6 3 5
4A1C_3 0.86 0.86 0.86 32 2726 9 0 5 4 5
4A1C_2 0.18 0.25 0.14 5 4480 45 12 19 14 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4ENB_A 0.78 0.73 0.85 11 459 4 0 2 2 4
4ENC_A 0.34 0.33 0.38 5 483 11 0 8 3 10

^top


Matthews Correlation Coeffient, Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value have been calculated based on the paper by Gardener & Giegerich, 2004.