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 Sfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Carnac(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Sfold Carnac(20)
MCC 0.712 > 0.696
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.724 ± 0.094 > 0.652 ± 0.113
Sensitivity 0.689 > 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.742 < 0.941
Total TP 505 > 380
Total TN 77458 < 77735
Total FP 300 > 75
Total FP CONTRA 48 > 6
Total FP INCONS 128 > 18
Total FP COMP 124 > 51
Total FN 228 < 353
P-value 1.83595875043e-07

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Sfold and Carnac(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 Sfold and Carnac(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 Sfold and Carnac(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Sfold and Carnac(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 Sfold and Carnac(20)).

^top





Performance of Sfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Sfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 505
Total TN 77458
Total FP 300
Total FP CONTRA 48
Total FP INCONS 128
Total FP COMP 124
Total FN 228
Total Scores
MCC 0.712
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.724 ± 0.094
Sensitivity 0.689
Positive Predictive Value 0.742
Nr of predictions 28

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 164 0 0 0 0 0
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 25 0 6 19 3
2XQD_Y 0.85 0.81 0.89 17 1110 3 0 2 1 4
2XXA_G 0.37 0.34 0.41 12 2016 18 1 16 1 23
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3AMU_B 0.81 0.79 0.83 15 1139 6 0 3 3 4
3G4S_9 0.78 0.77 0.80 20 2711 12 2 3 7 6
3GX2_A 0.86 0.79 0.96 22 1426 2 1 0 1 6
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.59 0.56 0.63 53 25452 34 14 17 3 42
3IZF_C 0.89 0.91 0.86 32 2603 8 0 5 3 3
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1095 16 2 14 0 20
3JYX_3 0.77 0.80 0.75 12 2362 24 0 4 20 3
3JYX_4 0.68 0.83 0.56 10 4738 23 7 1 15 2
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.85 0.78 0.94 29 2247 7 0 2 5 8
3O58_2 0.87 0.90 0.85 28 2721 11 0 5 6 3
3O58_3 0.51 0.50 0.52 11 4743 18 2 8 8 11
3PDR_A 0.82 0.80 0.85 40 4793 9 2 5 2 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.78 0.72 0.84 21 1508 4 2 2 0 8
4A1C_3 0.83 0.81 0.86 30 2728 7 0 5 2 7
4A1C_2 0.21 0.25 0.19 5 4489 34 8 14 12 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 0.57 0.33 1.00 5 491 0 0 0 0 10

^top



Performance of Carnac(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 380
Total TN 77735
Total FP 75
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 18
Total FP COMP 51
Total FN 353
Total Scores
MCC 0.696
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.652 ± 0.113
Sensitivity 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.941
Nr of predictions 28

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.77 0.60 1.00 6 168 0 0 0 0 4
2L94_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 357 0 0 0 0 18
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 14 0 0 14 0
2XKV_B 0.43 0.18 1.00 2 1833 1 0 0 1 9
2XQD_Y 0.87 0.76 1.00 16 1113 1 0 0 1 5
2XXA_G 0.29 0.09 1.00 3 2042 0 0 0 0 32
3A2K_C 0.88 0.77 1.00 17 1091 0 0 0 0 5
3AMU_B 0.79 0.79 0.79 15 1138 7 0 4 3 4
3G4S_9 0.73 0.54 1.00 14 2722 4 0 0 4 12
3GX2_A 0.68 0.46 1.00 13 1436 0 0 0 0 15
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.31 0.88 29 25503 4 3 1 0 66
3IZF_C 0.91 0.83 1.00 29 2611 2 0 0 2 6
3JYV_7 0.81 0.70 0.93 14 1096 3 0 1 2 6
3JYX_3 0.83 0.80 0.86 12 2364 13 0 2 11 3
3JYX_4 0.76 0.58 1.00 7 4749 2 0 0 2 5
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.46 0.22 1.00 8 2270 3 0 0 3 29
3O58_2 0.93 0.87 1.00 27 2727 2 0 0 2 4
3O58_3 0.60 0.36 1.00 8 4756 1 0 0 1 14
3PDR_A 0.75 0.58 0.97 29 4810 3 1 0 2 21
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.72 0.55 0.94 16 1516 1 0 1 0 13
4A1C_3 0.79 0.73 0.87 27 2732 5 0 4 1 10
4A1C_2 0.42 0.25 0.71 5 4509 3 0 2 1 15
4AOB_A 0.59 0.48 0.74 14 1418 6 2 3 1 15
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 472 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 496 0 0 0 0 15

^top


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