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 CRWrnafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric CRWrnafold MCFold
MCC 0.585 > 0.547
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.641 ± 0.127 > 0.565 ± 0.136
Sensitivity 0.525 < 0.579
Positive Predictive Value 0.659 > 0.525
Total TP 323 < 356
Total TN 65480 > 65292
Total FP 188 < 383
Total FP CONTRA 22 < 44
Total FP INCONS 145 < 278
Total FP COMP 21 < 61
Total FN 292 > 259
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CRWrnafold and MCFold. 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 CRWrnafold and MCFold).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CRWrnafold and MCFold. 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 CRWrnafold and MCFold).

^top





Performance of CRWrnafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CRWrnafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 323
Total TN 65480
Total FP 188
Total FP CONTRA 22
Total FP INCONS 145
Total FP COMP 21
Total FN 292
Total Scores
MCC 0.585
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.641 ± 0.127
Sensitivity 0.525
Positive Predictive Value 0.659
Nr of predictions 31

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LBS_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 0
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2LDL_A - 0.85 0.73 1.00 8 343 1 0 0 1 3
2LDT_A - 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 454 0 0 0 0 4
2LHP_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 652 0 0 0 0 2
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.52 0.44 0.63 17 6078 12 2 8 2 22
2LQZ_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 341 1 1 0 0 2
2YIE_X - 0.36 0.33 0.40 4 1368 9 2 4 3 8
2YIE_Z - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 3 12 0 12
3AMU_B 0.67 0.59 0.76 16 2982 7 0 5 2 11
3J0L_8 - 0.93 0.88 1.00 7 183 0 0 0 0 1
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.24 0.28 8 6187 23 2 19 2 25
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1212 13 0 13 0 17
3J0L_h - 0.81 0.65 1.00 28 6077 0 0 0 0 15
3J0L_1 - 0.76 0.63 0.92 12 1212 3 0 1 2 7
3J0L_a - 0.39 0.31 0.50 5 1118 5 1 4 0 11
3J16_L 0.84 0.70 1.00 21 2754 0 0 0 0 9
3SD1_A 0.52 0.45 0.61 19 3885 12 2 10 0 23
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 0.91 0.83 1.00 5 205 0 0 0 0 1
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 247 0 0 0 0 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 271 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.13 5 11741 44 4 31 9 28
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.84 32 7102 6 0 6 0 22
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4ENB_A 0.70 0.58 0.85 11 1262 2 1 1 0 8
4ENC_A 0.70 0.58 0.85 11 1313 2 1 1 0 8

^top



Performance of MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 356
Total TN 65292
Total FP 383
Total FP CONTRA 44
Total FP INCONS 278
Total FP COMP 61
Total FN 259
Total Scores
MCC 0.547
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.565 ± 0.136
Sensitivity 0.579
Positive Predictive Value 0.525
Nr of predictions 31

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LBS_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 482 1 0 0 1 0
2LC8_A 0.41 0.45 0.39 9 1517 16 0 14 2 11
2LDL_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 341 2 0 0 2 1
2LDT_A - 0.75 0.73 0.79 11 451 3 0 3 0 4
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 650 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 481 0 0 0 0 1
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 266 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.92 0.95 36 6067 14 0 2 12 3
2LQZ_A - 0.91 0.91 0.91 10 340 1 1 0 0 1
2YIE_X - 0.06 0.08 0.06 1 1361 21 1 15 5 11
2YIE_Z - 0.36 0.50 0.27 6 1518 18 4 12 2 6
3AMU_B 0.44 0.48 0.42 13 2972 18 2 16 0 14
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 182 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_2 - 0.21 0.24 0.18 8 6172 39 7 29 3 25
3J0L_g - 0.13 0.25 0.08 1 452 12 8 4 0 3
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1206 19 4 15 0 17
3J0L_h - 0.91 0.91 0.91 39 6062 13 0 4 9 4
3J0L_1 - 0.79 0.79 0.79 15 1206 6 0 4 2 4
3J0L_a - 0.16 0.19 0.17 3 1110 15 1 14 0 13
3J16_L 0.45 0.47 0.44 14 2743 19 1 17 1 16
3SD1_A 0.33 0.33 0.35 14 3876 26 0 26 0 28
3SN2_B 0.55 0.58 0.54 7 393 6 0 6 0 5
3TRZ_Z - -0.04 0.00 0.00 0 201 9 0 9 0 6
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 247 2 0 0 2 0
3TS2_V - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 268 9 0 8 1 5
3U4M_B - 0.59 0.59 0.59 22 3123 15 0 15 0 15
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.11 5 11735 56 10 31 15 28
4A1C_3 0.68 0.67 0.71 36 7089 17 1 14 2 18
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4ENB_A 0.61 0.63 0.60 12 1255 8 2 6 0 7
4ENC_A 0.28 0.32 0.27 6 1304 17 2 14 1 13

^top


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