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 CentroidAlifold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric CentroidAlifold(20) McQFold
MCC 0.810 > 0.629
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.802 ± 0.071 > 0.668 ± 0.131
Sensitivity 0.716 > 0.641
Positive Predictive Value 0.921 > 0.624
Total TP 499 > 447
Total TN 74687 > 74513
Total FP 122 < 347
Total FP CONTRA 21 < 95
Total FP INCONS 22 < 174
Total FP COMP 79 > 78
Total FN 198 < 250
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 499
Total TN 74687
Total FP 122
Total FP CONTRA 21
Total FP INCONS 22
Total FP COMP 79
Total FN 198
Total Scores
MCC 0.810
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.802 ± 0.071
Sensitivity 0.716
Positive Predictive Value 0.921
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.59 0.56 0.67 10 342 6 0 5 1 8
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 12 0 0 12 0
2XKV_B 0.60 0.36 1.00 4 1831 7 0 0 7 7
2XQD_Y 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1109 1 0 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.44 0.20 1.00 7 2038 4 0 0 4 28
3A2K_C 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1087 0 0 0 0 1
3AMU_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 1138 2 0 0 2 0
3GX2_A 0.92 0.86 1.00 24 1425 1 0 0 1 4
3IVN_B 0.86 0.83 0.90 19 882 2 2 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.67 0.52 0.88 49 25480 9 7 0 2 46
3IZF_C 0.91 0.89 0.94 31 2607 6 0 2 4 4
3JYV_7 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 1092 2 0 0 2 1
3JYX_3 0.80 0.80 0.80 12 2363 23 0 3 20 3
3JYX_4 0.67 0.75 0.60 9 4741 9 5 1 3 3
3LA5_A 0.87 0.80 0.95 20 933 1 1 0 0 5
3NPB_A 0.77 0.65 0.92 24 2252 6 1 1 4 13
3O58_2 0.93 0.94 0.94 29 2723 9 0 2 7 2
3O58_3 0.64 0.45 0.91 10 4753 2 1 0 1 12
3PDR_A 0.92 0.90 0.94 45 4792 5 1 2 2 5
3RKF_A 0.86 0.75 1.00 18 848 0 0 0 0 6
3SD1_A 0.85 0.76 0.96 22 1510 1 0 1 0 7
4A1C_2 0.33 0.25 0.45 5 4505 8 3 3 2 15
4A1C_3 0.93 0.92 0.94 34 2727 4 0 2 2 3
4AOB_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 23 1414 2 0 0 2 6
4ENB_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 9 463 0 0 0 0 6
4ENC_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 7 489 0 0 0 0 8

^top



Performance of McQFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 447
Total TN 74513
Total FP 347
Total FP CONTRA 95
Total FP INCONS 174
Total FP COMP 78
Total FN 250
Total Scores
MCC 0.629
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.668 ± 0.131
Sensitivity 0.641
Positive Predictive Value 0.624
Nr of predictions 26

^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
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
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_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 33 11 16 6 15
4A1C_3 0.28 0.30 0.28 11 2724 30 4 24 2 26
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.