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 Murlet(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for Murlet(20) & McQFold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Murlet(20) McQFold
MCC 0.666 > 0.644
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.679 ± 0.114 < 0.682 ± 0.181
Sensitivity 0.548 < 0.643
Positive Predictive Value 0.814 > 0.650
Total TP 249 < 292
Total TN 51957 > 51814
Total FP 79 < 182
Total FP CONTRA 17 < 55
Total FP INCONS 40 < 102
Total FP COMP 22 < 25
Total FN 205 > 162
P-value 7.30067511844e-06

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Murlet(20) and McQFold. 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 Murlet(20) and McQFold).

  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 Murlet(20) and McQFold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Murlet(20) and McQFold. 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 Murlet(20) and McQFold).

^top





Performance of Murlet(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Murlet(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 249
Total TN 51957
Total FP 79
Total FP CONTRA 17
Total FP INCONS 40
Total FP COMP 22
Total FN 205
Total Scores
MCC 0.666
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.679 ± 0.114
Sensitivity 0.548
Positive Predictive Value 0.814
Nr of predictions 15

^top



2. Individual counts for Murlet(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3A2K_C 0.88 0.86 0.90 19 1087 2 0 2 0 3
3GX2_A 0.73 0.54 1.00 15 1434 1 0 0 1 13
3IVN_B 0.80 0.65 1.00 15 888 0 0 0 0 8
3IZ4_A 0.46 0.33 0.66 31 25489 22 3 13 6 64
3JYV_7 0.84 0.80 0.89 16 1093 4 0 2 2 4
3LA5_A 0.80 0.64 1.00 16 938 0 0 0 0 9
3NPB_A 0.65 0.43 1.00 16 2262 2 0 0 2 21
3O58_3 0.37 0.32 0.44 7 4748 13 4 5 4 15
3PDR_A 0.84 0.76 0.93 38 4799 3 1 2 0 12
3RKF_A 0.81 0.67 1.00 16 850 0 0 0 0 8
3SD1_A 0.82 0.83 0.83 24 1504 5 4 1 0 5
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.20 5 4491 24 5 15 4 15
4AOB_A 0.87 0.76 1.00 22 1415 3 0 0 3 7
4ENB_A 0.51 0.27 1.00 4 468 0 0 0 0 11
4ENC_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 5 491 0 0 0 0 10

^top



Performance of McQFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 292
Total TN 51814
Total FP 182
Total FP CONTRA 55
Total FP INCONS 102
Total FP COMP 25
Total FN 162
Total Scores
MCC 0.644
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.682 ± 0.181
Sensitivity 0.643
Positive Predictive Value 0.650
Nr of predictions 15

^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
3A2K_C 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1087 0 0 0 0 1
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
3IZ4_A 0.46 0.46 0.47 44 25442 56 14 36 6 51
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1091 20 4 16 0 20
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


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