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 RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) CentroidFold
MCC 0.762 > 0.708
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.781 ± 0.083 > 0.721 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.671 < 0.697
Positive Predictive Value 0.870 > 0.724
Total TP 468 < 486
Total TN 74691 > 74558
Total FP 163 < 278
Total FP CONTRA 34 < 66
Total FP INCONS 36 < 119
Total FP COMP 93 = 93
Total FN 229 > 211
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASampler(20) and CentroidFold. 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 RNASampler(20) and CentroidFold).

  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 RNASampler(20) and CentroidFold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASampler(20) and CentroidFold. 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 RNASampler(20) and CentroidFold).

^top





Performance of RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 468
Total TN 74691
Total FP 163
Total FP CONTRA 34
Total FP INCONS 36
Total FP COMP 93
Total FN 229
Total Scores
MCC 0.762
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.781 ± 0.083
Sensitivity 0.671
Positive Predictive Value 0.870
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.94 0.94 0.94 17 339 2 0 1 1 1
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 14 0 0 14 0
2XKV_B 0.60 0.36 1.00 4 1831 2 0 0 2 7
2XQD_Y 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1109 1 0 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.34 0.11 1.00 4 2041 0 0 0 0 31
3A2K_C 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1087 0 0 0 0 1
3AMU_B 0.95 0.95 0.95 18 1138 4 0 1 3 1
3GX2_A 0.88 0.79 1.00 22 1427 1 0 0 1 6
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.41 0.65 39 25476 26 15 6 5 56
3IZF_C 0.92 0.86 1.00 30 2610 2 0 0 2 5
3JYV_7 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 1092 2 0 0 2 1
3JYX_3 0.70 0.60 0.82 9 2367 14 0 2 12 6
3JYX_4 0.61 0.83 0.45 10 4734 26 10 2 14 2
3LA5_A 0.89 0.80 1.00 20 934 0 0 0 0 5
3NPB_A 0.75 0.57 1.00 21 2257 5 0 0 5 16
3O58_2 0.93 0.87 1.00 27 2727 5 0 0 5 4
3O58_3 0.51 0.50 0.52 11 4743 19 5 5 9 11
3PDR_A 0.84 0.76 0.93 38 4799 5 1 2 2 12
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.81 0.69 0.95 20 1512 1 0 1 0 9
4A1C_2 0.24 0.25 0.24 5 4495 30 3 13 14 15
4A1C_3 0.90 0.81 1.00 30 2733 0 0 0 0 7
4AOB_A 0.70 0.59 0.85 17 1417 4 0 3 1 12
4ENB_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 7 465 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 0 0 0 0 4

^top



Performance of CentroidFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 486
Total TN 74558
Total FP 278
Total FP CONTRA 66
Total FP INCONS 119
Total FP COMP 93
Total FN 211
Total Scores
MCC 0.708
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.721 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.697
Positive Predictive Value 0.724
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.94 0.94 0.94 17 339 2 0 1 1 1
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 13 0 0 13 0
2XKV_B 0.64 0.73 0.57 8 1821 27 0 6 21 3
2XQD_Y 0.83 0.81 0.85 17 1109 4 0 3 1 4
2XXA_G 0.13 0.11 0.17 4 2021 21 2 18 1 31
3A2K_C 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1082 14 3 11 0 10
3AMU_B 0.81 0.79 0.83 15 1139 6 0 3 3 4
3GX2_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 25 1424 1 0 0 1 3
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.60 0.57 0.64 54 25451 38 16 15 7 41
3IZF_C 0.89 0.91 0.86 32 2603 11 0 5 6 3
3JYV_7 0.92 0.85 1.00 17 1094 2 0 0 2 3
3JYX_3 0.35 0.47 0.27 7 2352 21 14 5 2 8
3JYX_4 0.41 0.58 0.29 7 4732 25 11 6 8 5
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.87 0.84 0.91 31 2244 8 1 2 5 6
3O58_2 0.95 0.94 0.97 29 2724 7 0 1 6 2
3O58_3 0.44 0.41 0.47 9 4745 11 1 9 1 13
3PDR_A 0.88 0.86 0.90 43 4792 7 2 3 2 7
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 4 4 0 9
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.19 5 4490 29 9 12 8 15
4A1C_3 0.80 0.78 0.83 29 2728 8 0 6 2 8
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 1 0 0 1 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 1 0 0 1 4

^top


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