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 McQFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric McQFold Carnac(seed)
MCC 0.732 > 0.104
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.744 ± 0.151 > 0.033 ± 0.072
Sensitivity 0.729 > 0.011
Positive Predictive Value 0.743 < 1.000
Total TP 266 > 4
Total TN 26178 < 26532
Total FP 111 > 0
Total FP CONTRA 38 > 0
Total FP INCONS 54 > 0
Total FP COMP 19 > 0
Total FN 99 < 361
P-value 2.43573297697e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of McQFold and Carnac(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 McQFold and Carnac(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 McQFold and Carnac(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for McQFold and Carnac(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 McQFold and Carnac(seed)).

^top





Performance of McQFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 266
Total TN 26178
Total FP 111
Total FP CONTRA 38
Total FP INCONS 54
Total FP COMP 19
Total FN 99
Total Scores
MCC 0.732
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.744 ± 0.151
Sensitivity 0.729
Positive Predictive Value 0.743
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 1 4 0 7
3A3A_A 0.97 0.93 1.00 28 1472 0 0 0 0 2
3GX2_A 0.56 0.57 0.57 16 1421 13 4 8 1 12
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.90 0.81 1.00 30 2248 5 0 0 5 7
3O58_3 0.30 0.36 0.25 8 4732 27 15 9 3 14
3PDR_A 0.83 0.80 0.87 40 4794 9 2 4 3 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.82 0.83 0.83 24 1504 5 1 4 0 5
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 33 11 16 6 15
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ENB_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 457 0 0 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0

^top



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 4
Total TN 26532
Total FP 0
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 0
Total FP COMP 0
Total FN 361
Total Scores
MCC 0.104
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.033 ± 0.072
Sensitivity 0.011
Positive Predictive Value 1.000
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for Carnac(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.47 0.22 1.00 4 524 0 0 0 0 14
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
3LA5_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 954 0 0 0 0 25
3NPB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2278 0 0 0 0 37
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
4AOB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1437 0 0 0 0 29
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.