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 NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric CRWrnafold NanoFolder
MCC 0.687 > 0.542
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.752 ± 0.192 > 0.683 ± 0.191
Sensitivity 0.694 > 0.635
Positive Predictive Value 0.689 > 0.478
Total TP 175 > 160
Total TN 15181 > 15100
Total FP 106 < 201
Total FP CONTRA 22 < 63
Total FP INCONS 57 < 112
Total FP COMP 27 > 26
Total FN 77 < 92
P-value 2.59578924681e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CRWrnafold and NanoFolder. 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 NanoFolder).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CRWrnafold and NanoFolder. 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 NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of CRWrnafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CRWrnafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 175
Total TN 15181
Total FP 106
Total FP CONTRA 22
Total FP INCONS 57
Total FP COMP 27
Total FN 77
Total Scores
MCC 0.687
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.752 ± 0.192
Sensitivity 0.694
Positive Predictive Value 0.689
Nr of predictions 14

^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
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
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
3J16_L 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 1138 0 0 0 0 0
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
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
4AOB_A 0.71 0.69 0.74 20 1410 8 4 3 1 9
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 2 0 0 2 4

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 160
Total TN 15100
Total FP 201
Total FP CONTRA 63
Total FP INCONS 112
Total FP COMP 26
Total FN 92
Total Scores
MCC 0.542
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.683 ± 0.191
Sensitivity 0.635
Positive Predictive Value 0.478
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.54 0.61 0.50 11 506 11 1 10 0 7
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 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 - 0.26 0.34 0.21 10 2392 41 15 23 3 19
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 3 0 0 3 0
3J16_L 0.43 0.52 0.37 11 1129 19 8 11 0 10
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.77 0.91 0.67 20 1246 12 6 4 2 2
4A1C_3 0.58 0.68 0.51 25 2714 24 9 15 0 12
4A1C_2 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4469 61 18 29 14 20
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.39 0.41 0.39 12 1406 20 4 15 1 17
4ENC_A 0.66 0.73 0.61 11 478 9 2 5 2 4

^top


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