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 MaxExpect - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) MaxExpect
MCC 0.762 > 0.700
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.781 ± 0.083 > 0.711 ± 0.096
Sensitivity 0.671 < 0.710
Positive Predictive Value 0.870 > 0.696
Total TP 468 < 495
Total TN 74691 > 74518
Total FP 163 < 349
Total FP CONTRA 34 < 62
Total FP INCONS 36 < 154
Total FP COMP 93 < 133
Total FN 229 > 202
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 MaxExpect).

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

^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_4 0.61 0.83 0.45 10 4734 26 10 2 14 2
3JYX_3 0.70 0.60 0.82 9 2367 14 0 2 12 6
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_3 0.51 0.50 0.52 11 4743 19 5 5 9 11
3O58_2 0.93 0.87 1.00 27 2727 5 0 0 5 4
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_3 0.90 0.81 1.00 30 2733 0 0 0 0 7
4A1C_2 0.24 0.25 0.24 5 4495 30 3 13 14 15
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 MaxExpect - scored lower 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


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