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 Carnac(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Carnac(20) MCFold
MCC 0.615 > 0.421
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.546 ± 0.111 > 0.432 ± 0.102
Sensitivity 0.413 < 0.445
Positive Predictive Value 0.921 > 0.406
Total TP 326 < 351
Total TN 120103 > 119593
Total FP 47 < 570
Total FP CONTRA 6 < 75
Total FP INCONS 22 < 438
Total FP COMP 19 < 57
Total FN 463 > 438
P-value 5.06544643719e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Carnac(20) and MCFold).

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 326
Total TN 120103
Total FP 47
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 22
Total FP COMP 19
Total FN 463
Total Scores
MCC 0.615
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.546 ± 0.111
Sensitivity 0.413
Positive Predictive Value 0.921
Nr of predictions 24

^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 0.73 0.55 1.00 6 400 0 0 0 0 5
2L94_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 990 0 0 0 0 20
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 13 5 3 5 7
2XKV_B 0.32 0.10 1.00 2 4558 1 0 0 1 18
2XQD_Y 0.79 0.63 1.00 17 2833 0 0 0 0 10
2XXA_G 0.27 0.07 1.00 3 5148 0 0 0 0 39
3A2K_C 0.78 0.61 1.00 17 2909 0 0 0 0 11
3AMU_B 0.69 0.59 0.80 16 2983 6 0 4 2 11
3GX2_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 13 4358 0 0 0 0 27
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZF_C 0.73 0.56 0.97 30 6872 1 0 1 0 24
3JYV_7 0.68 0.50 0.94 16 2833 1 0 1 0 16
3JYX_4 0.46 0.21 1.00 7 12239 2 0 0 2 26
3JYX_3 0.64 0.56 0.75 15 6308 10 1 4 5 12
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3O58_2 0.83 0.71 0.96 27 7232 2 0 1 1 11
3O58_3 0.51 0.26 1.00 9 12394 0 0 0 0 26
3PDR_A 0.62 0.40 0.97 29 12850 3 0 1 2 43
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.60 0.38 0.94 16 3899 1 0 1 0 26
4A1C_2 0.33 0.15 0.71 5 11774 3 0 2 1 28
4A1C_3 0.67 0.52 0.88 28 7108 4 0 4 0 26
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1275 0 0 0 0 19
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1326 0 0 0 0 19

^top



Performance of MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 351
Total TN 119593
Total FP 570
Total FP CONTRA 75
Total FP INCONS 438
Total FP COMP 57
Total FN 438
Total Scores
MCC 0.421
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.432 ± 0.102
Sensitivity 0.445
Positive Predictive Value 0.406
Nr of predictions 24

^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
2KDQ_B 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 396 1 0 0 1 1
2L94_A 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 971 0 0 0 0 1
2WRQ_Y 0.27 0.35 0.22 6 2823 25 8 13 4 11
2XKV_B 0.20 0.25 0.17 5 4530 37 2 23 12 15
2XQD_Y 0.34 0.37 0.32 10 2819 22 1 20 1 17
2XXA_G 0.23 0.24 0.24 10 5110 32 1 30 1 32
3A2K_C 0.44 0.46 0.42 13 2895 18 2 16 0 15
3AMU_B 0.44 0.48 0.42 13 2972 18 2 16 0 14
3GX2_A 0.47 0.48 0.48 19 4331 22 0 21 1 21
3IVN_B 0.39 0.39 0.40 12 2316 18 0 18 0 19
3IZF_C 0.71 0.69 0.74 37 6853 14 0 13 1 17
3JYV_7 0.21 0.22 0.21 7 2817 26 0 26 0 25
3JYX_4 0.20 0.24 0.17 8 12199 43 16 23 4 25
3JYX_3 0.41 0.52 0.33 14 6285 34 12 17 5 13
3LA5_A 0.32 0.32 0.34 11 2453 21 1 20 0 23
3O58_2 0.20 0.24 0.17 9 7208 44 5 38 1 29
3O58_3 0.22 0.26 0.19 9 12355 45 9 30 6 26
3PDR_A 0.66 0.61 0.72 44 12819 19 0 17 2 28
3RKF_A 0.70 0.65 0.76 22 2182 7 1 6 0 12
3SD1_A 0.33 0.33 0.35 14 3876 26 0 26 0 28
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
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.