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 RNASLOpt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNASLOpt RNAwolf
MCC 0.591 > 0.488
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.668 ± 0.115 > 0.581 ± 0.136
Sensitivity 0.498 > 0.457
Positive Predictive Value 0.709 > 0.530
Total TP 302 > 277
Total TN 64164 > 64067
Total FP 141 < 276
Total FP CONTRA 16 < 29
Total FP INCONS 108 < 217
Total FP COMP 17 < 30
Total FN 304 < 329
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASLOpt and RNAwolf. 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 RNASLOpt and RNAwolf).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASLOpt and RNAwolf. 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 RNASLOpt and RNAwolf).

^top





Performance of RNASLOpt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 302
Total TN 64164
Total FP 141
Total FP CONTRA 16
Total FP INCONS 108
Total FP COMP 17
Total FN 304
Total Scores
MCC 0.591
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.668 ± 0.115
Sensitivity 0.498
Positive Predictive Value 0.709
Nr of predictions 30

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.47 0.35 0.64 7 1529 4 0 4 0 13
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 1 0 0 1 2
2LHP_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 651 0 0 0 0 1
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 343 2 0 0 2 0
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.68 0.62 0.75 24 6073 9 0 8 1 15
2LQZ_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 341 1 1 0 0 2
2LWK_A - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 485 1 0 1 0 3
3J0L_8 - 0.70 0.50 1.00 4 186 0 0 0 0 4
3J0L_2 - 0.39 0.36 0.43 12 6188 18 2 14 2 21
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1212 13 0 13 0 17
3J0L_h - 0.70 0.49 1.00 21 6084 0 0 0 0 22
3J0L_1 - 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1215 3 0 1 2 10
3J0L_a - 0.26 0.19 0.38 3 1120 5 1 4 0 13
3J16_L 0.53 0.40 0.71 12 2758 5 0 5 0 18
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 0.91 0.83 1.00 5 205 2 0 0 2 1
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 247 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 271 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3UZL_B 0.48 0.32 0.71 12 3553 5 0 5 0 25
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
4A1C_3 0.67 0.52 0.88 28 7108 4 0 4 0 26
4A1C_2 0.23 0.24 0.22 8 11744 35 8 21 6 25
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.26 0.19 0.38 8 4350 13 2 11 0 34
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10

^top



Performance of RNAwolf - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAwolf

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 277
Total TN 64067
Total FP 276
Total FP CONTRA 29
Total FP INCONS 217
Total FP COMP 30
Total FN 329
Total Scores
MCC 0.488
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.581 ± 0.136
Sensitivity 0.457
Positive Predictive Value 0.530
Nr of predictions 30

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.52 0.50 0.56 10 1522 8 0 8 0 10
2LDL_A - 0.74 0.64 0.88 7 343 1 0 1 0 4
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 650 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 481 0 0 0 0 1
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 343 3 0 0 3 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 266 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.81 0.74 0.88 29 6072 8 0 4 4 10
2LQZ_A - 0.91 0.91 0.91 10 340 1 1 0 0 1
2LWK_A - 0.37 0.38 0.38 5 483 9 0 8 1 8
3J0L_8 - 0.93 0.88 1.00 7 183 0 0 0 0 1
3J0L_2 - 0.11 0.12 0.11 4 6181 34 5 26 3 29
3J0L_g - 0.16 0.25 0.11 1 456 8 6 2 0 3
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1214 11 0 11 0 17
3J0L_h - 0.33 0.30 0.37 13 6070 24 0 22 2 30
3J0L_1 - 0.68 0.63 0.75 12 1209 5 0 4 1 7
3J0L_a - 0.18 0.19 0.20 3 1113 12 1 11 0 13
3J16_L 0.45 0.40 0.52 12 2752 11 0 11 0 18
3SN2_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 394 0 0 0 0 0
3TRZ_Z - 0.91 0.83 1.00 5 205 0 0 0 0 1
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 247 2 0 0 2 0
3TS2_V - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 270 7 0 6 1 5
3U4M_B - 0.44 0.38 0.52 14 3133 13 0 13 0 23
3UZL_B 0.72 0.59 0.88 22 3545 4 1 2 1 15
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 13 617 1 0 0 1 0
4A1C_3 0.23 0.20 0.28 11 7101 28 2 26 0 43
4A1C_2 0.08 0.09 0.08 3 11741 46 10 27 9 30
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.23 0.19 0.30 8 4344 20 1 18 1 34
4ENB_A 0.35 0.32 0.40 6 1260 9 1 8 0 13
4ENC_A 0.34 0.32 0.38 6 1310 10 1 9 0 13

^top


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