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 RNASLOpt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNASLOpt NanoFolder
MCC 0.680 > 0.562
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.759 ± 0.131 > 0.702 ± 0.166
Sensitivity 0.663 > 0.656
Positive Predictive Value 0.707 > 0.495
Total TP 193 > 191
Total TN 16913 > 16800
Total FP 103 < 228
Total FP CONTRA 22 < 73
Total FP INCONS 58 < 122
Total FP COMP 23 < 33
Total FN 98 < 100
P-value 1.95070920198e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of RNASLOpt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 193
Total TN 16913
Total FP 103
Total FP CONTRA 22
Total FP INCONS 58
Total FP COMP 23
Total FN 98
Total Scores
MCC 0.680
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.759 ± 0.131
Sensitivity 0.663
Positive Predictive Value 0.707
Nr of predictions 17

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.48 0.39 0.64 7 517 4 0 4 0 11
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 - 0.70 0.69 0.71 20 2412 13 1 7 5 9
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 0.63 0.57 0.71 12 1142 5 0 5 0 9
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3UZL_B 0.55 0.50 0.62 8 1280 9 1 4 4 8
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.79 0.73 0.87 27 2732 5 0 4 1 10
4A1C_2 0.30 0.40 0.24 8 4482 35 13 13 9 12
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.31 0.28 0.38 8 1416 13 3 10 0 21
4ENC_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 9 486 1 1 0 0 6

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 191
Total TN 16800
Total FP 228
Total FP CONTRA 73
Total FP INCONS 122
Total FP COMP 33
Total FN 100
Total Scores
MCC 0.562
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.702 ± 0.166
Sensitivity 0.656
Positive Predictive Value 0.495
Nr of predictions 17

^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
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.