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 Carnac(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for Carnac(20) & McQFold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Carnac(20) McQFold
MCC 0.696 > 0.625
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.652 ± 0.113 < 0.669 ± 0.125
Sensitivity 0.518 < 0.638
Positive Predictive Value 0.941 > 0.619
Total TP 380 < 468
Total TN 77735 > 77383
Total FP 75 < 369
Total FP CONTRA 6 < 101
Total FP INCONS 18 < 187
Total FP COMP 51 < 81
Total FN 353 > 265
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Carnac(20) and McQFold. 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 Carnac(20) and McQFold).

  2. Average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were plotted for different RNA families, for which at least 3 members were present in the benchmarking dataset. 'n' denotes the number of MCCs used to calculate the average and CI. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for Carnac(20) and McQFold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Carnac(20) and McQFold. 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 Carnac(20) and McQFold).

^top





Performance of Carnac(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Carnac(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 380
Total TN 77735
Total FP 75
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 18
Total FP COMP 51
Total FN 353
Total Scores
MCC 0.696
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.652 ± 0.113
Sensitivity 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.941
Nr of predictions 28

^top



2. Individual counts for Carnac(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.77 0.60 1.00 6 168 0 0 0 0 4
2L94_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 357 0 0 0 0 18
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 14 0 0 14 0
2XKV_B 0.43 0.18 1.00 2 1833 1 0 0 1 9
2XQD_Y 0.87 0.76 1.00 16 1113 1 0 0 1 5
2XXA_G 0.29 0.09 1.00 3 2042 0 0 0 0 32
3A2K_C 0.88 0.77 1.00 17 1091 0 0 0 0 5
3AMU_B 0.79 0.79 0.79 15 1138 7 0 4 3 4
3G4S_9 0.73 0.54 1.00 14 2722 4 0 0 4 12
3GX2_A 0.68 0.46 1.00 13 1436 0 0 0 0 15
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.31 0.88 29 25503 4 3 1 0 66
3IZF_C 0.91 0.83 1.00 29 2611 2 0 0 2 6
3JYV_7 0.81 0.70 0.93 14 1096 3 0 1 2 6
3JYX_3 0.83 0.80 0.86 12 2364 13 0 2 11 3
3JYX_4 0.76 0.58 1.00 7 4749 2 0 0 2 5
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.46 0.22 1.00 8 2270 3 0 0 3 29
3O58_2 0.93 0.87 1.00 27 2727 2 0 0 2 4
3O58_3 0.60 0.36 1.00 8 4756 1 0 0 1 14
3PDR_A 0.75 0.58 0.97 29 4810 3 1 0 2 21
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.72 0.55 0.94 16 1516 1 0 1 0 13
4A1C_3 0.79 0.73 0.87 27 2732 5 0 4 1 10
4A1C_2 0.42 0.25 0.71 5 4509 3 0 2 1 15
4AOB_A 0.59 0.48 0.74 14 1418 6 2 3 1 15
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 472 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 496 0 0 0 0 15

^top



Performance of McQFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 468
Total TN 77383
Total FP 369
Total FP CONTRA 101
Total FP INCONS 187
Total FP COMP 81
Total FN 265
Total Scores
MCC 0.625
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.669 ± 0.125
Sensitivity 0.638
Positive Predictive Value 0.619
Nr of predictions 28

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 164 0 0 0 0 0
2L94_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 339 1 0 0 1 0
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 14 0 0 14 0
2XKV_B 0.33 0.36 0.31 4 1822 27 2 7 18 7
2XQD_Y 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1109 1 0 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.27 0.26 0.30 9 2015 22 0 21 1 26
3A2K_C 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1087 0 0 0 0 1
3AMU_B 0.86 0.79 0.94 15 1141 4 0 1 3 4
3G4S_9 0.39 0.42 0.37 11 2706 22 6 13 3 15
3GX2_A 0.56 0.57 0.57 16 1421 13 4 8 1 12
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.46 0.46 0.47 44 25442 56 14 36 6 51
3IZF_C 0.85 0.83 0.88 29 2607 7 0 4 3 6
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1091 20 4 16 0 20
3JYX_3 0.28 0.40 0.20 6 2348 24 17 7 0 9
3JYX_4 0.35 0.58 0.22 7 4724 33 17 8 8 5
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.90 0.81 1.00 30 2248 5 0 0 5 7
3O58_2 0.93 0.87 1.00 27 2727 2 0 0 2 4
3O58_3 0.30 0.36 0.25 8 4732 27 15 9 3 14
3PDR_A 0.83 0.80 0.87 40 4794 9 2 4 3 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.82 0.83 0.83 24 1504 5 1 4 0 5
4A1C_3 0.28 0.30 0.28 11 2724 30 4 24 2 26
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 33 11 16 6 15
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ENB_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 457 0 0 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0

^top


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