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 MaxExpect - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric MaxExpect Mastr(20)
MCC 0.700 > 0.628
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.711 ± 0.096 > 0.600 ± 0.144
Sensitivity 0.710 > 0.471
Positive Predictive Value 0.696 < 0.845
Total TP 495 > 328
Total TN 74518 < 74841
Total FP 349 > 127
Total FP CONTRA 62 > 10
Total FP INCONS 154 > 50
Total FP COMP 133 > 67
Total FN 202 < 369
P-value 5.59469103578e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of MaxExpect and Mastr(20). 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 MaxExpect and Mastr(20)).

  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 MaxExpect and Mastr(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for MaxExpect and Mastr(20). 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 MaxExpect and Mastr(20)).

^top





Performance of MaxExpect - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MaxExpect

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 495
Total TN 74518
Total FP 349
Total FP CONTRA 62
Total FP INCONS 154
Total FP COMP 133
Total FN 202
Total Scores
MCC 0.700
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.711 ± 0.096
Sensitivity 0.710
Positive Predictive Value 0.696
Nr of predictions 26

^top



2. Individual counts for MaxExpect [ 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 0.94 0.89 1.00 8 1144 14 0 0 14 1
2XKV_B 0.64 0.73 0.57 8 1821 26 0 6 20 3
2XQD_Y 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1109 1 0 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.24 0.26 0.25 9 2009 28 1 26 1 26
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3AMU_B 0.73 0.79 0.68 15 1135 10 0 7 3 4
3GX2_A 0.93 0.89 0.96 25 1423 2 1 0 1 3
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.61 0.61 0.62 58 25442 42 14 22 6 37
3IZF_C 0.89 0.91 0.86 32 2603 8 0 5 3 3
3JYV_7 0.48 0.45 0.53 9 1094 9 3 5 1 11
3JYX_4 0.55 0.83 0.37 10 4729 34 14 3 17 2
3JYX_3 0.77 0.80 0.75 12 2362 24 0 4 20 3
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.77 0.73 0.82 27 2245 10 0 6 4 10
3O58_3 0.40 0.50 0.33 11 4731 36 8 14 14 11
3O58_2 0.91 0.94 0.88 29 2721 11 0 4 7 2
3PDR_A 0.92 0.90 0.94 45 4792 5 1 2 2 5
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.70 0.69 0.71 20 1505 8 3 5 0 9
4A1C_3 0.83 0.81 0.86 30 2728 7 0 5 2 7
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 41 10 17 14 15
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 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 8 0 7 1 10

^top



Performance of Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Mastr(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 328
Total TN 74841
Total FP 127
Total FP CONTRA 10
Total FP INCONS 50
Total FP COMP 67
Total FN 369
Total Scores
MCC 0.628
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.600 ± 0.144
Sensitivity 0.471
Positive Predictive Value 0.845
Nr of predictions 26

^top



2. Individual counts for Mastr(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.88 0.83 0.94 15 341 2 0 1 1 3
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 13 0 0 13 0
2XKV_B 0.60 0.36 1.00 4 1831 3 0 0 3 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 0 0 0 0 28
3A2K_C 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1088 3 0 3 0 5
3AMU_B 0.89 0.79 1.00 15 1142 2 0 0 2 4
3GX2_A 0.46 0.39 0.55 11 1429 10 2 7 1 17
3IVN_B 0.86 0.83 0.90 19 882 2 2 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 25536 0 0 0 0 95
3IZF_C 0.91 0.91 0.91 32 2605 9 0 3 6 3
3JYV_7 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 1092 2 0 0 2 1
3JYX_4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4756 0 0 0 0 12
3JYX_3 0.77 0.80 0.75 12 2362 26 0 4 22 3
3LA5_A 0.89 0.80 1.00 20 934 0 0 0 0 5
3NPB_A 0.34 0.30 0.41 11 2251 18 1 15 2 26
3O58_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4764 0 0 0 0 22
3O58_2 0.93 0.94 0.94 29 2723 12 0 2 10 2
3PDR_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4840 0 0 0 0 50
3RKF_A 0.84 0.71 1.00 17 849 0 0 0 0 7
3SD1_A 0.73 0.72 0.75 21 1505 7 4 3 0 8
4A1C_3 0.88 0.86 0.89 32 2727 7 0 4 3 5
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4516 0 0 0 0 20
4AOB_A 0.42 0.34 0.53 10 1418 10 1 8 1 19
4ENB_A 0.44 0.20 1.00 3 469 0 0 0 0 12
4ENC_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 5 491 0 0 0 0 10

^top


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