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 NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for CentroidHomfold‑LAST & NanoFolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CentroidHomfold‑LAST NanoFolder
MCC 0.725 > 0.543
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.761 ± 0.189 > 0.683 ± 0.173
Sensitivity 0.650 > 0.639
Positive Predictive Value 0.818 > 0.476
Total TP 180 > 177
Total TN 16777 > 16625
Total FP 67 < 228
Total FP CONTRA 8 < 73
Total FP INCONS 32 < 122
Total FP COMP 27 < 33
Total FN 97 < 100
P-value 2.18141491686e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidHomfold-LAST and NanoFolder. 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 NanoFolder).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidHomfold-LAST and NanoFolder. 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 NanoFolder).

^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 16777
Total FP 67
Total FP CONTRA 8
Total FP INCONS 32
Total FP COMP 27
Total FN 97
Total Scores
MCC 0.725
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.761 ± 0.189
Sensitivity 0.650
Positive Predictive Value 0.818
Nr of predictions 16

^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
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 517 11 0 11 0 18
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2436 4 0 4 0 29
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
3J16_L 0.90 0.81 1.00 17 1142 0 0 0 0 4
3SN2_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 10 144 0 0 0 0 2
3U4M_B - 0.78 0.73 0.84 16 1257 4 0 3 1 6
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 7 0 6 1 8
4A1C_2 0.24 0.25 0.24 5 4495 29 8 8 13 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.85 0.72 1.00 21 1416 1 0 0 1 8
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 0 0 0 0 4

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 177
Total TN 16625
Total FP 228
Total FP CONTRA 73
Total FP INCONS 122
Total FP COMP 33
Total FN 100
Total Scores
MCC 0.543
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.683 ± 0.173
Sensitivity 0.639
Positive Predictive Value 0.476
Nr of predictions 16

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.54 0.61 0.50 11 506 11 1 10 0 7
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.26 0.34 0.21 10 2392 41 15 23 3 19
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 3 0 0 3 0
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 2 0 0 2 1
3J16_L 0.43 0.52 0.37 11 1129 19 8 11 0 10
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.77 0.91 0.67 20 1246 12 6 4 2 2
3UZL_B 0.41 0.56 0.31 9 1264 25 10 10 5 7
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.58 0.68 0.51 25 2714 24 9 15 0 12
4A1C_2 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4469 61 18 29 14 20
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.39 0.41 0.39 12 1406 20 4 15 1 17
4ENC_A 0.66 0.73 0.61 11 478 9 2 5 2 4

^top


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