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 CentroidAlifold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for CentroidAlifold(seed) & RDfolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CentroidAlifold(seed) RDfolder
MCC 0.780 > 0.600
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.710 ± 0.162 > 0.577 ± 0.209
Sensitivity 0.627 > 0.543
Positive Predictive Value 0.979 > 0.679
Total TP 188 > 163
Total TN 13149 > 13101
Total FP 8 < 79
Total FP CONTRA 3 < 15
Total FP INCONS 1 < 62
Total FP COMP 4 > 2
Total FN 112 < 137
P-value 1.19192530585e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidAlifold(seed) and RDfolder. 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(seed) and RDfolder).

  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 CentroidAlifold(seed) and RDfolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidAlifold(seed) and RDfolder. 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(seed) and RDfolder).

^top





Performance of CentroidAlifold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidAlifold(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 188
Total TN 13149
Total FP 8
Total FP CONTRA 3
Total FP INCONS 1
Total FP COMP 4
Total FN 112
Total Scores
MCC 0.780
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.710 ± 0.162
Sensitivity 0.627
Positive Predictive Value 0.979
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidAlifold(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 528 0 0 0 0 18
2ZZN_D 0.52 0.27 1.00 6 978 0 0 0 0 16
3A2K_C 0.52 0.27 1.00 6 1102 0 0 0 0 16
3A3A_A 0.95 0.90 1.00 27 1473 0 0 0 0 3
3GX2_A 0.92 0.86 1.00 24 1425 1 0 0 1 4
3IVN_B 0.86 0.83 0.90 19 882 2 2 0 0 4
3JYV_7 0.50 0.25 1.00 5 1106 1 0 0 1 15
3LA5_A 0.87 0.80 0.95 20 933 1 1 0 0 5
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.85 0.76 0.96 22 1510 1 0 1 0 7
4AOB_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 23 1414 2 0 0 2 6
4ENB_A 0.72 0.53 1.00 8 464 0 0 0 0 7
4ENC_A 0.73 0.53 1.00 8 488 0 0 0 0 7

^top



Performance of RDfolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RDfolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 163
Total TN 13101
Total FP 79
Total FP CONTRA 15
Total FP INCONS 62
Total FP COMP 2
Total FN 137
Total Scores
MCC 0.600
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.577 ± 0.209
Sensitivity 0.543
Positive Predictive Value 0.679
Nr of predictions 13

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 514 14 3 11 0 18
2ZZN_D 0.93 0.95 0.91 21 961 2 2 0 0 1
3A2K_C 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1087 0 0 0 0 1
3A3A_A 0.59 0.50 0.71 15 1479 6 0 6 0 15
3GX2_A 0.60 0.57 0.64 16 1424 10 2 7 1 12
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1091 20 4 16 0 20
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.35 0.24 0.54 7 1520 6 1 5 0 22
4AOB_A 0.42 0.38 0.48 11 1414 13 3 9 1 18
4ENB_A 0.48 0.40 0.60 6 462 4 0 4 0 9
4ENC_A 0.48 0.40 0.60 6 486 4 0 4 0 9

^top


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