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 RNAalifold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAalifold(20) CentroidFold
MCC 0.777 > 0.708
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.770 ± 0.085 > 0.721 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.686 < 0.697
Positive Predictive Value 0.884 > 0.724
Total TP 478 < 486
Total TN 74688 > 74558
Total FP 141 < 278
Total FP CONTRA 21 < 66
Total FP INCONS 42 < 119
Total FP COMP 78 < 93
Total FN 219 > 211
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 478
Total TN 74688
Total FP 141
Total FP CONTRA 21
Total FP INCONS 42
Total FP COMP 78
Total FN 219
Total Scores
MCC 0.777
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.770 ± 0.085
Sensitivity 0.686
Positive Predictive Value 0.884
Nr of predictions 26

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAalifold(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 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 12 0 0 12 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 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1087 0 0 0 0 1
3AMU_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 1138 2 0 0 2 0
3GX2_A 0.92 0.86 1.00 24 1425 1 0 0 1 4
3IVN_B 0.86 0.78 0.95 18 884 1 1 0 0 5
3IZ4_A 0.65 0.48 0.87 46 25483 15 4 3 8 49
3IZF_C 0.90 0.89 0.91 31 2606 6 0 3 3 4
3JYV_7 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 1092 2 0 0 2 1
3JYX_3 0.76 0.73 0.79 11 2364 20 0 3 17 4
3JYX_4 0.77 0.83 0.71 10 4742 15 3 1 11 2
3LA5_A 0.87 0.76 1.00 19 935 0 0 0 0 6
3NPB_A 0.75 0.57 1.00 21 2257 4 0 0 4 16
3O58_2 0.97 0.94 1.00 29 2725 7 0 0 7 2
3O58_3 0.42 0.36 0.50 8 4748 9 3 5 1 14
3PDR_A 0.92 0.88 0.96 44 4794 3 1 1 1 6
3RKF_A 0.81 0.71 0.94 17 848 1 0 1 0 7
3SD1_A 0.84 0.86 0.83 25 1503 5 4 1 0 4
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.19 5 4490 23 5 16 2 15
4A1C_3 0.90 0.84 0.97 31 2731 1 0 1 0 6
4AOB_A 0.85 0.72 1.00 21 1416 2 0 0 2 8
4ENB_A 0.51 0.27 1.00 4 468 0 0 0 0 11
4ENC_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 6 490 0 0 0 0 9

^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.