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 MaxExpect - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for MaxExpect & UNAFold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric MaxExpect UNAFold
MCC 0.648 > 0.554
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.630 ± 0.113 > 0.618 ± 0.117
Sensitivity 0.660 > 0.575
Positive Predictive Value 0.637 > 0.535
Total TP 953 > 831
Total TN 1567351 > 1567294
Total FP 673 < 845
Total FP CONTRA 180 < 187
Total FP INCONS 364 < 536
Total FP COMP 129 > 122
Total FN 492 < 614
P-value 5.06544643719e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of MaxExpect and UNAFold. 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 MaxExpect and UNAFold).

  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 MaxExpect and UNAFold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for MaxExpect and UNAFold. 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 MaxExpect and UNAFold).

^top





Performance of MaxExpect - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MaxExpect

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 953
Total TN 1567351
Total FP 673
Total FP CONTRA 180
Total FP INCONS 364
Total FP COMP 129
Total FN 492
Total Scores
MCC 0.648
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.630 ± 0.113
Sensitivity 0.660
Positive Predictive Value 0.637
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 2003 9 1 0 8 3
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3ADB_C - 0.86 0.85 0.88 28 1787 4 0 4 0 5
3GX2_A 0.93 0.89 0.96 25 1423 2 1 0 1 3
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IWN_A 0.80 0.79 0.81 22 1445 6 1 4 1 6
3IYQ_A 0.24 0.33 0.17 17 22342 96 41 40 15 34
3IZ4_A 0.61 0.61 0.62 58 25442 42 14 22 6 37
3J0L_a - 0.39 0.36 0.44 4 402 6 4 1 1 7
3JYV_7 0.48 0.45 0.53 9 1094 9 3 5 1 11
3KIY_A - 0.67 0.68 0.66 531 1485073 336 81 195 60 255
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.69 0.74 0.67 14 714 7 0 7 0 5
3NPB_A 0.77 0.73 0.82 27 2245 10 0 6 4 10
3O58_3 0.40 0.50 0.33 11 4731 36 8 14 14 11
3PDR_A 0.92 0.90 0.94 45 4792 5 1 2 2 5
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.70 0.69 0.71 20 1505 8 3 5 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.58 0.59 0.59 13 1254 9 2 7 0 9
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 41 10 17 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 8 0 7 1 10

^top



Performance of UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for UNAFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 831
Total TN 1567294
Total FP 845
Total FP CONTRA 187
Total FP INCONS 536
Total FP COMP 122
Total FN 614
Total Scores
MCC 0.554
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.618 ± 0.117
Sensitivity 0.575
Positive Predictive Value 0.535
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 2003 9 1 0 8 3
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3ADB_C - 0.86 0.85 0.88 28 1787 4 0 4 0 5
3GX2_A 0.81 0.79 0.85 22 1423 5 2 2 1 6
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IWN_A 0.80 0.79 0.81 22 1445 6 1 4 1 6
3IYQ_A 0.23 0.33 0.17 17 22339 96 46 38 12 34
3IZ4_A 0.58 0.60 0.57 57 25436 53 12 31 10 38
3J0L_a - 0.55 0.64 0.50 7 397 8 5 2 1 4
3JYV_7 0.24 0.25 0.25 5 1091 16 7 8 1 15
3KIY_A - 0.50 0.52 0.48 410 1485034 486 79 357 50 376
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.69 0.74 0.67 14 714 7 0 7 0 5
3NPB_A 0.85 0.78 0.94 29 2247 6 0 2 4 8
3O58_3 0.42 0.50 0.35 11 4733 34 5 15 14 11
3PDR_A 0.93 0.92 0.94 46 4791 5 1 2 2 4
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.77 0.76 0.79 22 1505 6 4 2 0 7
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 42 11 17 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 485 7 0 6 1 10

^top


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