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 NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric CentroidHomfold‑LAST NanoFolder
MCC 0.566 > 0.427
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.539 ± 0.505 > 0.470 ± 0.376
Sensitivity 0.510 < 0.519
Positive Predictive Value 0.639 > 0.365
Total TP 53 < 54
Total TN 8170 > 8105
Total FP 45 < 113
Total FP CONTRA 8 < 31
Total FP INCONS 22 < 63
Total FP COMP 15 < 19
Total FN 51 > 50
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidHomfold-LAST and NanoFolder. 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 NanoFolder).

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

^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 53
Total TN 8170
Total FP 45
Total FP CONTRA 8
Total FP INCONS 22
Total FP COMP 15
Total FN 51
Total Scores
MCC 0.566
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.539 ± 0.505
Sensitivity 0.510
Positive Predictive Value 0.639
Nr of predictions 5

^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
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
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 0 0 0 0 4

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 54
Total TN 8105
Total FP 113
Total FP CONTRA 31
Total FP INCONS 63
Total FP COMP 19
Total FN 50
Total Scores
MCC 0.427
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.470 ± 0.376
Sensitivity 0.519
Positive Predictive Value 0.365
Nr of predictions 5

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.54 0.61 0.50 11 506 11 1 10 0 7
3U4M_B - 0.77 0.91 0.67 20 1246 12 6 4 2 2
4A1C_2 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4469 61 18 29 14 20
4AOB_A 0.39 0.41 0.39 12 1406 20 4 15 1 17
4ENC_A 0.66 0.73 0.61 11 478 9 2 5 2 4

^top


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