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 MXScarna(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric MXScarna(20) CentroidFold
MCC 0.630 > 0.597
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.629 ± 0.070 > 0.605 ± 0.088
Sensitivity 0.526 > 0.506
Positive Predictive Value 0.758 > 0.707
Total TP 525 > 505
Total TN 201626 > 201605
Total FP 250 < 255
Total FP CONTRA 30 < 37
Total FP INCONS 138 < 172
Total FP COMP 82 > 46
Total FN 473 < 493
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 MXScarna(20) and CentroidFold).

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 525
Total TN 201626
Total FP 250
Total FP CONTRA 30
Total FP INCONS 138
Total FP COMP 82
Total FN 473
Total Scores
MCC 0.630
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.629 ± 0.070
Sensitivity 0.526
Positive Predictive Value 0.758
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.73 0.70 0.78 14 972 4 0 4 0 6
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 13 5 3 5 7
2XKV_B 0.45 0.20 1.00 4 4556 3 0 0 3 16
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
2XXA_G 0.80 0.71 0.91 30 5118 4 0 3 1 12
3A2K_C 0.66 0.57 0.76 16 2905 6 1 4 1 12
3AMU_B 0.86 0.74 1.00 20 2983 2 0 0 2 7
3GX2_A 0.70 0.58 0.85 23 4344 5 0 4 1 17
3IVN_B 0.74 0.58 0.95 18 2327 1 1 0 0 13
3IZ4_A 0.51 0.41 0.64 54 70791 32 7 24 1 78
3IZF_C 0.67 0.59 0.76 32 6861 11 1 9 1 22
3JYV_7 0.79 0.63 1.00 20 2830 0 0 0 0 12
3JYX_3 0.55 0.52 0.58 14 6304 23 0 10 13 13
3JYX_4 0.33 0.30 0.37 10 12219 32 2 15 15 23
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.69 0.59 0.82 27 6988 9 1 5 3 19
3O58_2 0.74 0.74 0.74 28 7222 13 4 6 3 10
3O58_3 0.52 0.40 0.67 14 12382 17 2 5 10 21
3PDR_A 0.71 0.57 0.89 41 12834 9 0 5 4 31
3RKF_A 0.72 0.53 1.00 18 2193 0 0 0 0 16
3SD1_A 0.63 0.55 0.74 23 3885 8 2 6 0 19
4A1C_2 0.18 0.15 0.21 5 11757 36 2 17 17 28
4A1C_3 0.64 0.56 0.75 30 7100 11 2 8 1 24
4AOB_A 0.62 0.55 0.72 23 4339 10 0 9 1 19
4ENB_A 0.26 0.11 0.67 2 1272 1 0 1 0 17
4ENC_A 0.60 0.37 1.00 7 1319 0 0 0 0 12

^top



Performance of CentroidFold - scored lower 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


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