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 MCFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric MCFold NanoFolder
MCC 0.636 > 0.522
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.718 ± 0.164 > 0.684 ± 0.170
Sensitivity 0.654 > 0.538
Positive Predictive Value 0.624 > 0.515
Total TP 214 > 176
Total TN 36721 < 36722
Total FP 166 < 177
Total FP CONTRA 15 < 27
Total FP INCONS 114 < 139
Total FP COMP 37 > 11
Total FN 113 < 151
P-value 1.45096400029e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of MCFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 214
Total TN 36721
Total FP 166
Total FP CONTRA 15
Total FP INCONS 114
Total FP COMP 37
Total FN 113
Total Scores
MCC 0.636
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.718 ± 0.164
Sensitivity 0.654
Positive Predictive Value 0.624
Nr of predictions 15

^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
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
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
2LWK_A - 0.92 0.92 0.92 12 483 2 0 1 1 1
3J16_L 0.45 0.47 0.44 14 2743 19 1 17 1 16
3SN2_B 0.55 0.58 0.54 7 393 6 0 6 0 5
3U4M_B - 0.59 0.59 0.59 22 3123 15 0 15 0 15
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 13 617 1 0 0 1 0
4A1C_3 0.68 0.67 0.71 36 7089 17 1 14 2 18
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.11 5 11735 56 10 31 15 28
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.28 0.32 0.27 6 1304 17 2 14 1 13

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 176
Total TN 36722
Total FP 177
Total FP CONTRA 27
Total FP INCONS 139
Total FP COMP 11
Total FN 151
Total Scores
MCC 0.522
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.684 ± 0.170
Sensitivity 0.538
Positive Predictive Value 0.515
Nr of predictions 15

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.52 0.55 0.50 11 1518 11 0 11 0 9
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 1 0 0 1 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 - 0.29 0.33 0.25 13 6054 38 8 30 0 26
2LQZ_A - 0.91 0.91 0.91 10 340 1 1 0 0 1
2LWK_A - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 485 2 0 1 1 3
3J16_L 0.36 0.37 0.37 11 2745 19 3 16 0 19
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.61 0.57 0.66 21 3128 11 1 10 0 16
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
4A1C_3 0.48 0.46 0.51 25 7091 24 2 22 0 29
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11728 61 12 41 8 33
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.57 0.58 0.58 11 1307 9 0 8 1 8

^top


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