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 MCFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric MCFold NanoFolder
MCC 0.732 > 0.592
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.778 ± 0.160 > 0.742 ± 0.179
Sensitivity 0.760 > 0.691
Positive Predictive Value 0.714 > 0.521
Total TP 187 > 170
Total TN 14194 > 14130
Total FP 119 < 183
Total FP CONTRA 17 < 59
Total FP INCONS 58 < 97
Total FP COMP 44 > 27
Total FN 59 < 76
P-value 2.69132796717e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of MCFold 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 MCFold and NanoFolder).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for MCFold 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 MCFold and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of MCFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 187
Total TN 14194
Total FP 119
Total FP CONTRA 17
Total FP INCONS 58
Total FP COMP 44
Total FN 59
Total Scores
MCC 0.732
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.778 ± 0.160
Sensitivity 0.760
Positive Predictive Value 0.714
Nr of predictions 15

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.44 0.44 0.47 8 511 10 0 9 1 10
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 29 2411 11 0 0 11 0
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 3 0 0 3 0
2LWK_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 196 2 0 0 2 0
3J16_L 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1136 12 4 7 1 9
3SN2_B 0.58 0.58 0.64 7 143 4 0 4 0 5
3U4M_B - 0.74 0.77 0.71 17 1252 10 1 6 3 5
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 1 0 0 1 0
4A1C_2 0.18 0.25 0.14 5 4480 45 12 19 14 15
4A1C_3 0.86 0.86 0.86 32 2726 9 0 5 4 5
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.34 0.33 0.38 5 483 11 0 8 3 10

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 170
Total TN 14130
Total FP 183
Total FP CONTRA 59
Total FP INCONS 97
Total FP COMP 27
Total FN 76
Total Scores
MCC 0.592
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.742 ± 0.179
Sensitivity 0.691
Positive Predictive Value 0.521
Nr of predictions 15

^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
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 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
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_2 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4469 61 18 29 14 20
4A1C_3 0.58 0.68 0.51 25 2714 24 9 15 0 12
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
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.