CompaRNA - on-line benchmarks of RNA structure prediction methods

FAQ

Metric	RNASampler(20)		CentroidFold
MCC	0.732	>	0.716
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.763 ± 0.114	>	0.733 ± 0.126
Sensitivity	0.639	<	0.687
Positive Predictive Value	0.843	>	0.750
Total TP	290	<	312
Total TN	51919	>	51847
Total FP	93	<	133
Total FP CONTRA	24	<	39
Total FP INCONS	30	<	65
Total FP COMP	39	>	29
Total FN	164	>	142
P-value	7.98630365413e-08

Comparison of performance of RNASampler(20) and CentroidFold. 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 RNASampler(20) and CentroidFold).
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 RNASampler(20) and CentroidFold).
Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASampler(20) and CentroidFold. 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 RNASampler(20) and CentroidFold).

Total Scores
MCC	0.732
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.763 ± 0.114
Sensitivity	0.639
Positive Predictive Value	0.843
Nr of predictions	15

RNA Chain	Rfam family	MCC	SENS	PPV	TP	TN	FP	FP CONTRA	FP INCONS	FP COMP	FN
3A2K_C	tRNA links to Rfam database...	0.98	0.95	1.00	21	1087	0	0	0	0	1
3GX2_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.88	0.79	1.00	22	1427	1	0	0	1	6
3IVN_B	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.91	0.83	1.00	19	884	0	0	0	0	4
3IZ4_A	tmRNA links to Rfam database...	0.52	0.41	0.65	39	25476	26	15	6	5	56
3JYV_7	tRNA links to Rfam database...	0.97	0.95	1.00	19	1092	2	0	0	2	1
3LA5_A	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.89	0.80	1.00	20	934	0	0	0	0	5
3NPB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.75	0.57	1.00	21	2257	5	0	0	5	16
3O58_3	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.51	0.50	0.52	11	4743	19	5	5	9	11
3PDR_A	ykoK links to Rfam database...	0.84	0.76	0.93	38	4799	5	1	2	2	12
3RKF_A	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.91	0.83	1.00	20	846	0	0	0	0	4
3SD1_A	THF links to Rfam database...	0.81	0.69	0.95	20	1512	1	0	1	0	9
4A1C_2	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.24	0.25	0.24	5	4495	30	3	13	14	15
4AOB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.70	0.59	0.85	17	1417	4	0	3	1	12
4ENB_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.68	0.47	1.00	7	465	0	0	0	0	8
4ENC_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.85	0.73	1.00	11	485	0	0	0	0	4

Total Scores
MCC	0.716
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.733 ± 0.126
Sensitivity	0.687
Positive Predictive Value	0.750
Nr of predictions	15

RNA Chain	Rfam family	MCC	SENS	PPV	TP	TN	FP	FP CONTRA	FP INCONS	FP COMP	FN
3A2K_C	tRNA links to Rfam database...	0.49	0.55	0.46	12	1082	14	3	11	0	10
3GX2_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.94	0.89	1.00	25	1424	1	0	0	1	3
3IVN_B	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.91	0.83	1.00	19	884	0	0	0	0	4
3IZ4_A	tmRNA links to Rfam database...	0.60	0.57	0.64	54	25451	38	16	15	7	41
3JYV_7	tRNA links to Rfam database...	0.92	0.85	1.00	17	1094	2	0	0	2	3
3LA5_A	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.91	0.84	1.00	21	933	0	0	0	0	4
3NPB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.87	0.84	0.91	31	2244	8	1	2	5	6
3O58_3	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.44	0.41	0.47	9	4745	11	1	9	1	13
3PDR_A	ykoK links to Rfam database...	0.88	0.86	0.90	43	4792	7	2	3	2	7
3RKF_A	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.91	0.83	1.00	20	846	0	0	0	0	4
3SD1_A	THF links to Rfam database...	0.70	0.69	0.71	20	1505	8	4	4	0	9
4A1C_2	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.22	0.25	0.19	5	4490	29	9	12	8	15
4AOB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.50	0.48	0.54	14	1411	13	3	9	1	15
4ENB_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.85	0.73	1.00	11	461	1	0	0	1	4
4ENC_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.85	0.73	1.00	11	485	1	0	0	1	4

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