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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of MXScarna(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for CentroidHomfold‑LAST & MXScarna(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CentroidHomfold‑LAST MXScarna(seed)
MCC 0.753 > 0.716
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.743 ± 0.195 > 0.666 ± 0.184
Sensitivity 0.690 > 0.667
Positive Predictive Value 0.829 > 0.777
Total TP 180 > 174
Total TN 16360 > 16353
Total FP 63 < 81
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 11
Total FP INCONS 28 < 39
Total FP COMP 26 < 31
Total FN 81 < 87
P-value 1.50834591464e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidHomfold-LAST and MXScarna(seed). 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and MXScarna(seed)).

  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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and MXScarna(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidHomfold-LAST and MXScarna(seed). 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and MXScarna(seed)).

^top





Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 180
Total TN 16360
Total FP 63
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 28
Total FP COMP 26
Total FN 81
Total Scores
MCC 0.753
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.743 ± 0.195
Sensitivity 0.690
Positive Predictive Value 0.829
Nr of predictions 12

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.94 0.94 0.94 17 339 2 0 1 1 1
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 517 11 0 11 0 18
3AMU_B 0.95 0.95 0.95 18 1138 4 0 1 3 1
3J16_L 0.90 0.81 1.00 17 1142 0 0 0 0 4
3RKF_A 0.86 0.75 1.00 18 848 0 0 0 0 6
3SD1_A 0.77 0.66 0.90 19 1512 2 1 1 0 10
3UZL_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 1279 7 0 0 7 2
4A1C_3 0.80 0.78 0.83 29 2728 7 0 6 1 8
4A1C_2 0.24 0.25 0.24 5 4495 29 8 8 13 15
4AOB_A 0.85 0.72 1.00 21 1416 1 0 0 1 8
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 0 0 0 0 4

^top



Performance of MXScarna(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MXScarna(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 174
Total TN 16353
Total FP 81
Total FP CONTRA 11
Total FP INCONS 39
Total FP COMP 31
Total FN 87
Total Scores
MCC 0.716
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.666 ± 0.184
Sensitivity 0.667
Positive Predictive Value 0.777
Nr of predictions 12

^top



2. Individual counts for MXScarna(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.55 0.56 0.59 10 340 8 0 7 1 8
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 518 12 0 10 2 18
3AMU_B 0.97 0.95 1.00 18 1139 2 0 0 2 1
3J16_L 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1139 0 0 0 0 1
3RKF_A 0.86 0.75 1.00 18 848 0 0 0 0 6
3SD1_A 0.74 0.76 0.73 22 1503 9 4 4 1 7
3UZL_B 0.83 0.75 0.92 12 1280 8 0 1 7 4
4A1C_3 0.92 0.92 0.92 34 2726 6 0 3 3 3
4A1C_2 0.45 0.40 0.50 8 4500 20 4 4 12 12
4AOB_A 0.71 0.69 0.74 20 1410 10 2 5 3 9
4ENB_A 0.54 0.40 0.75 6 464 2 0 2 0 9
4ENC_A 0.48 0.40 0.60 6 486 4 1 3 0 9

^top


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