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 UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric CentroidAlifold(20) UNAFold
MCC 0.810 > 0.704
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.802 ± 0.071 > 0.713 ± 0.099
Sensitivity 0.716 > 0.710
Positive Predictive Value 0.921 > 0.704
Total TP 499 > 495
Total TN 74687 > 74526
Total FP 122 < 352
Total FP CONTRA 21 < 60
Total FP INCONS 22 < 148
Total FP COMP 79 < 144
Total FN 198 < 202
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 UNAFold).

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

^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 UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for UNAFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 495
Total TN 74526
Total FP 352
Total FP CONTRA 60
Total FP INCONS 148
Total FP COMP 144
Total FN 202
Total Scores
MCC 0.704
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.713 ± 0.099
Sensitivity 0.710
Positive Predictive Value 0.704
Nr of predictions 26

^top



2. Individual counts for UNAFold [ 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 0.58 0.64 0.54 7 1822 23 0 6 17 4
2XQD_Y 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1109 1 0 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.35 0.34 0.38 12 2013 21 1 19 1 23
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3AMU_B 0.81 0.79 0.83 15 1139 6 0 3 3 4
3GX2_A 0.81 0.79 0.85 22 1423 5 2 2 1 6
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.58 0.60 0.57 57 25436 53 12 31 10 38
3IZF_C 0.89 0.91 0.86 32 2603 9 0 5 4 3
3JYV_7 0.24 0.25 0.25 5 1091 16 7 8 1 15
3JYX_3 0.77 0.80 0.75 12 2362 27 0 4 23 3
3JYX_4 0.61 0.83 0.45 10 4734 31 10 2 19 2
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.85 0.78 0.94 29 2247 6 0 2 4 8
3O58_2 0.87 0.87 0.87 27 2723 12 0 4 8 4
3O58_3 0.42 0.50 0.35 11 4733 34 5 15 14 11
3PDR_A 0.93 0.92 0.94 46 4791 5 1 2 2 4
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.77 0.76 0.79 22 1505 6 4 2 0 7
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 42 11 17 14 15
4A1C_3 0.88 0.86 0.89 32 2727 7 0 4 3 5
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 485 7 0 6 1 10

^top


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