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 CentroidAlifold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric CentroidAlifold(20) MCFold
MCC 0.690 > 0.414
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.669 ± 0.071 > 0.409 ± 0.095
Sensitivity 0.539 > 0.438
Positive Predictive Value 0.888 > 0.399
Total TP 419 > 341
Total TN 119579 > 119197
Total FP 89 < 569
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 75
Total FP INCONS 44 < 438
Total FP COMP 36 < 56
Total FN 359 < 437
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 419
Total TN 119579
Total FP 89
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 44
Total FP COMP 36
Total FN 359
Total Scores
MCC 0.690
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.669 ± 0.071
Sensitivity 0.539
Positive Predictive Value 0.888
Nr of predictions 23

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 974 5 0 5 0 9
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 11 5 3 3 7
2XKV_B 0.46 0.25 0.83 5 4554 6 0 1 5 15
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
2XXA_G 0.44 0.19 1.00 8 5143 3 0 0 3 34
3A2K_C 0.86 0.75 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 7
3AMU_B 0.86 0.74 1.00 20 2983 1 0 0 1 7
3GX2_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 24 4347 1 0 0 1 16
3IVN_B 0.78 0.65 0.95 20 2325 1 1 0 0 11
3IZF_C 0.75 0.61 0.92 33 6867 4 0 3 1 21
3JYV_7 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 11
3JYX_4 0.39 0.27 0.56 9 12230 9 0 7 2 24
3JYX_3 0.61 0.56 0.68 15 6306 20 0 7 13 12
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3O58_3 0.54 0.31 0.92 11 12391 1 0 1 0 24
3O58_2 0.78 0.76 0.81 29 7224 9 2 5 2 9
3PDR_A 0.76 0.63 0.94 45 12832 5 0 3 2 27
3RKF_A 0.72 0.53 1.00 18 2193 0 0 0 0 16
3SD1_A 0.71 0.52 0.96 22 3893 1 0 1 0 20
4A1C_2 0.26 0.15 0.45 5 11770 8 1 5 2 28
4A1C_3 0.76 0.63 0.92 34 7103 4 0 3 1 20
4ENB_A 0.69 0.47 1.00 9 1266 0 0 0 0 10
4ENC_A 0.60 0.37 1.00 7 1319 0 0 0 0 12

^top



Performance of MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 341
Total TN 119197
Total FP 569
Total FP CONTRA 75
Total FP INCONS 438
Total FP COMP 56
Total FN 437
Total Scores
MCC 0.414
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.409 ± 0.095
Sensitivity 0.438
Positive Predictive Value 0.399
Nr of predictions 23

^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
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_3 0.22 0.26 0.19 9 12355 45 9 30 6 26
3O58_2 0.20 0.24 0.17 9 7208 44 5 38 1 29
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.