CompaRNA - on-line benchmarks of RNA structure prediction methods

FAQ

Metric	CentroidAlifold(20)		Contrafold
MCC	0.803	>	0.650
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.799 ± 0.092	>	0.653 ± 0.163
Sensitivity	0.694	>	0.652
Positive Predictive Value	0.932	>	0.655
Total TP	315	>	296
Total TN	51925	>	51811
Total FP	39	<	187
Total FP CONTRA	16	<	58
Total FP INCONS	7	<	98
Total FP COMP	16	<	31
Total FN	139	<	158
P-value	3.33194562506e-08

Comparison of performance of CentroidAlifold(20) and Contrafold. 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 CentroidAlifold(20) and Contrafold).
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 CentroidAlifold(20) and Contrafold).
Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidAlifold(20) and Contrafold. 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 CentroidAlifold(20) and Contrafold).

Total Scores
MCC	0.803
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.799 ± 0.092
Sensitivity	0.694
Positive Predictive Value	0.932
Nr of predictions	15

RNA Chain	Rfam family	MCC	SENS	PPV	TP	TN	FP	FP CONTRA	FP INCONS	FP COMP	FN
3A2K_C	tRNA links to Rfam database...	0.98	0.95	1.00	21	1087	0	0	0	0	1
3GX2_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.92	0.86	1.00	24	1425	1	0	0	1	4
3IVN_B	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.86	0.83	0.90	19	882	2	2	0	0	4
3IZ4_A	tmRNA links to Rfam database...	0.67	0.52	0.88	49	25480	9	7	0	2	46
3JYV_7	tRNA links to Rfam database...	0.97	0.95	1.00	19	1092	2	0	0	2	1
3LA5_A	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.87	0.80	0.95	20	933	1	1	0	0	5
3NPB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.77	0.65	0.92	24	2252	6	1	1	4	13
3O58_3	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.64	0.45	0.91	10	4753	2	1	0	1	12
3PDR_A	ykoK links to Rfam database...	0.92	0.90	0.94	45	4792	5	1	2	2	5
3RKF_A	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.86	0.75	1.00	18	848	0	0	0	0	6
3SD1_A	THF links to Rfam database...	0.85	0.76	0.96	22	1510	1	0	1	0	7
4A1C_2	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.33	0.25	0.45	5	4505	8	3	3	2	15
4AOB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.89	0.79	1.00	23	1414	2	0	0	2	6
4ENB_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.77	0.60	1.00	9	463	0	0	0	0	6
4ENC_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.68	0.47	1.00	7	489	0	0	0	0	8

Total Scores
MCC	0.650
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.653 ± 0.163
Sensitivity	0.652
Positive Predictive Value	0.655
Nr of predictions	15

RNA Chain	Rfam family	MCC	SENS	PPV	TP	TN	FP	FP CONTRA	FP INCONS	FP COMP	FN
3A2K_C	tRNA links to Rfam database...	0.49	0.55	0.46	12	1082	14	3	11	0	10
3GX2_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.93	0.89	0.96	25	1423	2	1	0	1	3
3IVN_B	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.91	0.83	1.00	19	884	0	0	0	0	4
3IZ4_A	tmRNA links to Rfam database...	0.57	0.58	0.57	55	25440	49	18	23	8	40
3JYV_7	tRNA links to Rfam database...	-0.02	0.00	0.00	0	1091	20	4	16	0	20
3LA5_A	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.91	0.84	1.00	21	933	0	0	0	0	4
3NPB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.86	0.84	0.89	31	2243	9	1	3	5	6
3O58_3	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.32	0.36	0.29	8	4736	21	7	13	1	14
3PDR_A	ykoK links to Rfam database...	0.83	0.86	0.80	43	4786	13	5	6	2	7
3RKF_A	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.87	0.83	0.91	20	844	2	2	0	0	4
3SD1_A	THF links to Rfam database...	0.68	0.69	0.69	20	1504	9	5	4	0	9
4A1C_2	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.21	0.25	0.19	5	4489	33	9	13	11	15
4AOB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.53	0.52	0.56	15	1410	13	3	9	1	14
4ENB_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.85	0.73	1.00	11	461	1	0	0	1	4
4ENC_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.85	0.73	1.00	11	485	1	0	0	1	4

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