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 MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric CentroidHomfold‑LAST MCFold
MCC 0.596 > 0.500
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.539 ± 0.335 > 0.493 ± 0.234
Sensitivity 0.519 < 0.532
Positive Predictive Value 0.696 > 0.485
Total TP 80 < 82
Total TN 9983 > 9929
Total FP 49 < 113
Total FP CONTRA 10 < 15
Total FP INCONS 25 < 72
Total FP COMP 14 < 26
Total FN 74 > 72
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^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 80
Total TN 9983
Total FP 49
Total FP CONTRA 10
Total FP INCONS 25
Total FP COMP 14
Total FN 74
Total Scores
MCC 0.596
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.539 ± 0.335
Sensitivity 0.519
Positive Predictive Value 0.696
Nr of predictions 8

^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
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 MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 82
Total TN 9929
Total FP 113
Total FP CONTRA 15
Total FP INCONS 72
Total FP COMP 26
Total FN 72
Total Scores
MCC 0.500
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.493 ± 0.234
Sensitivity 0.532
Positive Predictive Value 0.485
Nr of predictions 8

^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
2LC8_A 0.44 0.44 0.47 8 511 10 0 9 1 10
3J0L_a - 0.14 0.18 0.15 2 398 13 1 10 2 9
3RKF_A 0.89 0.88 0.91 21 843 3 0 2 1 3
3SD1_A 0.43 0.45 0.43 13 1503 17 1 16 0 16
3U4M_B - 0.74 0.77 0.71 17 1252 10 1 6 3 5
4A1C_2 0.18 0.25 0.14 5 4480 45 12 19 14 15
4ENB_A 0.78 0.73 0.85 11 459 4 0 2 2 4
4ENC_A 0.34 0.33 0.38 5 483 11 0 8 3 10

^top


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