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 MCFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Mastr(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric MCFold Mastr(seed)
MCC 0.551 > 0.000
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.534 ± 0.134 > 0.000 ± 0.000
Sensitivity 0.587 > 0.000
Positive Predictive Value 0.530 > 0.000
Total TP 213 > 0
Total TN 25622 < 26024
Total FP 229 > 0
Total FP CONTRA 52 > 0
Total FP INCONS 137 > 0
Total FP COMP 40 > 0
Total FN 150 < 363
P-value 2.86595104665e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of MCFold and Mastr(seed). 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 MCFold and Mastr(seed)).

  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 MCFold and Mastr(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for MCFold and Mastr(seed). 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 MCFold and Mastr(seed)).

^top





Performance of MCFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 213
Total TN 25622
Total FP 229
Total FP CONTRA 52
Total FP INCONS 137
Total FP COMP 40
Total FN 150
Total Scores
MCC 0.551
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.534 ± 0.134
Sensitivity 0.587
Positive Predictive Value 0.530
Nr of predictions 15

^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
2ZZN_D 0.69 0.73 0.67 16 960 11 1 7 3 6
3A2K_C 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1082 14 3 11 0 10
3A3A_A 0.98 0.97 1.00 29 1471 0 0 0 0 1
3GX2_A 0.58 0.61 0.57 17 1419 15 1 12 2 11
3IVN_B 0.45 0.48 0.46 11 879 14 5 8 1 12
3JYV_7 0.25 0.30 0.24 6 1086 20 8 11 1 14
3LA5_A 0.44 0.44 0.48 11 931 12 2 10 0 14
3O58_3 0.28 0.36 0.22 8 4727 39 14 15 10 14
3PDR_A 0.78 0.80 0.77 40 4788 14 5 7 2 10
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
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



Performance of Mastr(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 0
Total TN 26024
Total FP 0
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 0
Total FP COMP 0
Total FN 363
Total Scores
MCC 0.000
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.000 ± 0.000
Sensitivity 0.000
Positive Predictive Value 0.000
Nr of predictions 15

^top



2. Individual counts for Mastr(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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 984 0 0 0 0 22
3A2K_C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1108 0 0 0 0 22
3A3A_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1500 0 0 0 0 30
3GX2_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1449 0 0 0 0 28
3IVN_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 903 0 0 0 0 23
3JYV_7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1111 0 0 0 0 20
3LA5_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 954 0 0 0 0 25
3O58_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4764 0 0 0 0 22
3PDR_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4840 0 0 0 0 50
3RKF_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 866 0 0 0 0 24
3SD1_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1533 0 0 0 0 29
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4516 0 0 0 0 20
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 472 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 496 0 0 0 0 15

^top


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