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 Murlet(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric MaxExpect Murlet(20)
MCC 0.700 > 0.698
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.711 ± 0.096 > 0.701 ± 0.077
Sensitivity 0.710 > 0.591
Positive Predictive Value 0.696 < 0.831
Total TP 495 > 412
Total TN 74518 < 74733
Total FP 349 > 150
Total FP CONTRA 62 > 21
Total FP INCONS 154 > 63
Total FP COMP 133 > 66
Total FN 202 < 285
P-value 0.605451749002

^top




Performance plots


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

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for MaxExpect and Murlet(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 Murlet(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 Murlet(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 412
Total TN 74733
Total FP 150
Total FP CONTRA 21
Total FP INCONS 63
Total FP COMP 66
Total FN 285
Total Scores
MCC 0.698
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.701 ± 0.077
Sensitivity 0.591
Positive Predictive Value 0.831
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.51 0.50 0.56 9 341 8 0 7 1 9
2WRQ_Y 0.63 0.67 0.60 6 1142 13 1 3 9 3
2XKV_B 0.60 0.36 1.00 4 1831 3 0 0 3 7
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.86 0.90 18 1109 3 0 2 1 3
2XXA_G 0.44 0.20 1.00 7 2038 0 0 0 0 28
3A2K_C 0.88 0.86 0.90 19 1087 2 0 2 0 3
3AMU_B 0.89 0.89 0.89 17 1138 4 0 2 2 2
3GX2_A 0.73 0.54 1.00 15 1434 1 0 0 1 13
3IVN_B 0.80 0.65 1.00 15 888 0 0 0 0 8
3IZ4_A 0.46 0.33 0.66 31 25489 22 3 13 6 64
3IZF_C 0.88 0.83 0.94 29 2609 5 0 2 3 6
3JYV_7 0.84 0.80 0.89 16 1093 4 0 2 2 4
3JYX_4 0.72 0.75 0.69 9 4743 15 3 1 11 3
3JYX_3 0.76 0.73 0.79 11 2364 14 0 3 11 4
3LA5_A 0.80 0.64 1.00 16 938 0 0 0 0 9
3NPB_A 0.65 0.43 1.00 16 2262 2 0 0 2 21
3O58_3 0.37 0.32 0.44 7 4748 13 4 5 4 15
3O58_2 1.00 1.00 1.00 31 2723 2 0 0 2 0
3PDR_A 0.84 0.76 0.93 38 4799 3 1 2 0 12
3RKF_A 0.81 0.67 1.00 16 850 0 0 0 0 8
3SD1_A 0.82 0.83 0.83 24 1504 5 4 1 0 5
4A1C_3 0.72 0.59 0.88 22 2738 4 0 3 1 15
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.20 5 4491 24 5 15 4 15
4AOB_A 0.87 0.76 1.00 22 1415 3 0 0 3 7
4ENB_A 0.51 0.27 1.00 4 468 0 0 0 0 11
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.