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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for CentroidHomfold‑LAST & Fold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CentroidHomfold‑LAST Fold
MCC 0.635 > 0.468
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.574 ± 0.299 > 0.424 ± 0.228
Sensitivity 0.552 > 0.475
Positive Predictive Value 0.743 > 0.478
Total TP 101 > 87
Total TN 11399 > 11353
Total FP 50 < 113
Total FP CONTRA 10 < 28
Total FP INCONS 25 < 67
Total FP COMP 15 < 18
Total FN 82 < 96
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidHomfold-LAST and Fold. 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and Fold).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidHomfold-LAST and Fold. 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and Fold).

^top





Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 101
Total TN 11399
Total FP 50
Total FP CONTRA 10
Total FP INCONS 25
Total FP COMP 15
Total FN 82
Total Scores
MCC 0.635
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.574 ± 0.299
Sensitivity 0.552
Positive Predictive Value 0.743
Nr of predictions 9

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ 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 0 517 11 0 11 0 18
3J0L_a - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 408 3 1 2 0 11
3RKF_A 0.86 0.75 1.00 18 848 0 0 0 0 6
3SD1_A 0.77 0.66 0.90 19 1512 2 1 1 0 10
3U4M_B - 0.78 0.73 0.84 16 1257 4 0 3 1 6
4A1C_2 0.24 0.25 0.24 5 4495 29 8 8 13 15
4AOB_A 0.85 0.72 1.00 21 1416 1 0 0 1 8
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 0 0 0 0 4

^top



Performance of Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 87
Total TN 11353
Total FP 113
Total FP CONTRA 28
Total FP INCONS 67
Total FP COMP 18
Total FN 96
Total Scores
MCC 0.468
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.424 ± 0.228
Sensitivity 0.475
Positive Predictive Value 0.478
Nr of predictions 9

^top



2. Individual counts for Fold [ 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 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
3J0L_a - 0.15 0.18 0.17 2 399 11 4 6 1 9
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1504 9 4 5 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.58 0.59 0.59 13 1254 9 2 7 0 9
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4482 43 11 18 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 461 7 0 6 1 10
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 8 0 7 1 10

^top


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