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 CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric CentroidFold Carnac(20)
MCC 0.597 > 0.584
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.605 ± 0.088 > 0.530 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.506 > 0.375
Positive Predictive Value 0.707 < 0.914
Total TP 505 > 374
Total TN 201605 < 201910
Total FP 255 > 57
Total FP CONTRA 37 > 7
Total FP INCONS 172 > 28
Total FP COMP 46 > 22
Total FN 493 < 624
P-value 4.80284942886e-07

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 505
Total TN 201605
Total FP 255
Total FP CONTRA 37
Total FP INCONS 172
Total FP COMP 46
Total FN 493
Total Scores
MCC 0.597
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.605 ± 0.088
Sensitivity 0.506
Positive Predictive Value 0.707
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 0.92 0.90 0.95 18 971 1 0 1 0 2
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 12 5 3 4 7
2XKV_B 0.51 0.50 0.53 10 4541 25 0 9 16 10
2XQD_Y 0.75 0.67 0.86 18 2829 3 0 3 0 9
2XXA_G 0.15 0.12 0.20 5 5126 20 1 19 0 37
3A2K_C 0.44 0.43 0.46 12 2900 14 2 12 0 16
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3GX2_A 0.79 0.63 1.00 25 4346 1 0 0 1 15
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.55 0.45 0.68 59 70789 33 4 24 5 73
3IZF_C 0.68 0.61 0.77 33 6860 10 1 9 0 21
3JYV_7 0.77 0.59 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 13
3JYX_3 0.29 0.30 0.30 8 6301 20 8 11 1 19
3JYX_4 0.23 0.21 0.25 7 12218 25 5 16 4 26
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.77 0.70 0.86 32 6984 7 1 4 2 14
3O58_2 0.82 0.76 0.88 29 7227 7 1 3 3 9
3O58_3 0.38 0.29 0.50 10 12383 10 0 10 0 25
3PDR_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 43 12832 7 0 5 2 29
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.58 0.48 0.71 20 3888 8 1 7 0 22
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11752 29 5 19 5 28
4A1C_3 0.67 0.56 0.81 30 7103 7 1 6 0 24
4AOB_A 0.45 0.33 0.61 14 4348 10 1 8 1 28
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1314 1 1 0 0 8

^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 374
Total TN 201910
Total FP 57
Total FP CONTRA 7
Total FP INCONS 28
Total FP COMP 22
Total FN 624
Total Scores
MCC 0.584
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.530 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.375
Positive Predictive Value 0.914
Nr of predictions 26

^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
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
3IZ4_A 0.47 0.23 0.94 31 70843 2 0 2 0 101
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_3 0.64 0.56 0.75 15 6308 10 1 4 5 12
3JYX_4 0.46 0.21 1.00 7 12239 2 0 0 2 26
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.44 0.20 1.00 9 7012 2 0 0 2 37
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
4AOB_A 0.49 0.33 0.74 14 4352 6 1 4 1 28
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


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