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 CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric CentroidFold RNASLOpt
MCC 0.747 > 0.679
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.773 ± 0.117 > 0.723 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.721 > 0.649
Positive Predictive Value 0.783 > 0.721
Total TP 321 > 289
Total TN 24013 < 24022
Total FP 133 < 154
Total FP CONTRA 19 < 28
Total FP INCONS 70 < 84
Total FP COMP 44 > 42
Total FN 124 < 156
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidFold and RNASLOpt. 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 CentroidFold and RNASLOpt).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidFold and RNASLOpt. 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 CentroidFold and RNASLOpt).

^top





Performance of CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 321
Total TN 24013
Total FP 133
Total FP CONTRA 19
Total FP INCONS 70
Total FP COMP 44
Total FN 124
Total Scores
MCC 0.747
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.773 ± 0.117
Sensitivity 0.721
Positive Predictive Value 0.783
Nr of predictions 30

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.51 0.39 0.70 7 518 3 1 2 0 11
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 0 0 0 0 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 123 3 0 0 3 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.88 0.86 0.89 25 2412 8 0 3 5 4
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2LWK_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 196 1 0 0 1 0
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_2 - 0.28 0.31 0.28 8 2221 24 2 19 3 18
3J0L_g - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 176 0 0 0 0 2
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 514 5 1 4 0 10
3J0L_h - 0.89 0.88 0.90 28 2109 5 0 3 2 4
3J0L_1 - 0.73 0.62 0.89 8 475 3 0 1 2 5
3J0L_a - 0.41 0.36 0.50 4 403 5 3 1 1 7
3J16_L 0.59 0.57 0.63 12 1140 7 0 7 0 9
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 1 0 0 1 0
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 112 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 103 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1256 5 0 3 2 5
3UZL_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 1279 7 0 0 7 2
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.80 0.78 0.83 29 2728 8 0 6 2 8
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.19 5 4490 29 9 12 8 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 1 0 0 1 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 1 0 0 1 4

^top



Performance of RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 289
Total TN 24022
Total FP 154
Total FP CONTRA 28
Total FP INCONS 84
Total FP COMP 42
Total FN 156
Total Scores
MCC 0.679
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.723 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.649
Positive Predictive Value 0.721
Nr of predictions 30

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.48 0.39 0.64 7 517 4 0 4 0 11
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 0 0 0 0 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 123 3 0 0 3 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.70 0.69 0.71 20 2412 13 1 7 5 9
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 1 0 0 1 1
3J0L_8 - 0.74 0.57 1.00 4 72 0 0 0 0 3
3J0L_2 - 0.49 0.46 0.52 12 2227 18 0 11 7 14
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 174 4 0 2 2 2
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 506 13 3 10 0 10
3J0L_h - 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2119 0 0 0 0 11
3J0L_1 - 0.73 0.62 0.89 8 475 4 0 1 3 5
3J0L_a - 0.21 0.18 0.29 2 404 6 3 2 1 9
3J16_L 0.63 0.57 0.71 12 1142 5 0 5 0 9
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 2 0 0 2 0
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 112 1 0 0 1 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
3UZL_B 0.55 0.50 0.62 8 1280 9 1 4 4 8
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.79 0.73 0.87 27 2732 5 0 4 1 10
4A1C_2 0.30 0.40 0.24 8 4482 35 13 13 9 12
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.31 0.28 0.38 8 1416 13 3 10 0 21
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 9 486 1 1 0 0 6

^top


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