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 Mastr(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Mastr(20) MCFold
MCC 0.591 > 0.421
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.555 ± 0.126 > 0.432 ± 0.102
Sensitivity 0.417 < 0.445
Positive Predictive Value 0.844 > 0.406
Total TP 329 < 351
Total TN 120067 > 119593
Total FP 87 < 570
Total FP CONTRA 12 < 75
Total FP INCONS 49 < 438
Total FP COMP 26 < 57
Total FN 460 > 438
P-value 5.02343278931e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 329
Total TN 120067
Total FP 87
Total FP CONTRA 12
Total FP INCONS 49
Total FP COMP 26
Total FN 460
Total Scores
MCC 0.591
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.555 ± 0.126
Sensitivity 0.417
Positive Predictive Value 0.844
Nr of predictions 24

^top



2. Individual counts for Mastr(20) [ 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 0 0 0 0 1
2L94_A 0.87 0.80 0.94 16 973 1 0 1 0 4
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 12 5 3 4 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 0.41 0.17 1.00 7 5144 0 0 0 0 35
3A2K_C 0.72 0.61 0.85 17 2906 3 0 3 0 11
3AMU_B 0.77 0.59 1.00 16 2987 1 0 0 1 11
3GX2_A 0.39 0.28 0.55 11 4351 10 0 9 1 29
3IVN_B 0.78 0.65 0.95 20 2325 1 1 0 0 11
3IZF_C 0.73 0.63 0.85 34 6863 7 1 5 1 20
3JYV_7 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 11
3JYX_4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12246 0 0 0 0 33
3JYX_3 0.56 0.56 0.58 15 6302 23 1 10 12 12
3LA5_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2465 0 0 0 0 14
3O58_2 0.76 0.76 0.76 29 7222 12 3 6 3 9
3O58_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12403 0 0 0 0 35
3PDR_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12880 0 0 0 0 72
3RKF_A 0.70 0.50 1.00 17 2194 0 0 0 0 17
3SD1_A 0.61 0.50 0.75 21 3888 7 1 6 0 21
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11781 0 0 0 0 33
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.84 32 7102 7 0 6 1 22
4ENB_A 0.39 0.16 1.00 3 1272 0 0 0 0 16
4ENC_A 0.51 0.26 1.00 5 1321 0 0 0 0 14

^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.