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 RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for RNASampler(20) & RNAalifold(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) RNAalifold(seed)
MCC 0.704 > 0.685
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.730 ± 0.122 > 0.693 ± 0.077
Sensitivity 0.607 > 0.515
Positive Predictive Value 0.822 < 0.918
Total TP 250 > 212
Total TN 49740 < 49813
Total FP 91 > 31
Total FP CONTRA 24 > 12
Total FP INCONS 30 > 7
Total FP COMP 37 > 12
Total FN 162 < 200
P-value 2.66715895098e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASampler(20) and RNAalifold(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 RNASampler(20) and RNAalifold(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 RNASampler(20) and RNAalifold(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASampler(20) and RNAalifold(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 RNASampler(20) and RNAalifold(seed)).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 250
Total TN 49740
Total FP 91
Total FP CONTRA 24
Total FP INCONS 30
Total FP COMP 37
Total FN 162
Total Scores
MCC 0.704
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.730 ± 0.122
Sensitivity 0.607
Positive Predictive Value 0.822
Nr of predictions 13

^top



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

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

^top



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 212
Total TN 49813
Total FP 31
Total FP CONTRA 12
Total FP INCONS 7
Total FP COMP 12
Total FN 200
Total Scores
MCC 0.685
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.693 ± 0.077
Sensitivity 0.515
Positive Predictive Value 0.918
Nr of predictions 13

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3GX2_A 0.88 0.79 1.00 22 1427 1 0 0 1 6
3IVN_B 0.71 0.65 0.79 15 884 4 2 2 0 8
3IZ4_A 0.46 0.26 0.81 25 25505 8 6 0 2 70
3LA5_A 0.73 0.64 0.84 16 935 3 1 2 0 9
3NPB_A 0.77 0.59 1.00 22 2256 3 0 0 3 15
3O58_3 0.60 0.36 1.00 8 4756 1 0 0 1 14
3PDR_A 0.81 0.66 1.00 33 4807 1 0 0 1 17
3RKF_A 0.74 0.67 0.84 16 847 3 1 2 0 8
3SD1_A 0.70 0.59 0.85 17 1513 3 2 1 0 12
4A1C_2 0.50 0.25 1.00 5 4511 2 0 0 2 15
4AOB_A 0.85 0.72 1.00 21 1416 2 0 0 2 8
4ENB_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 6 466 0 0 0 0 9
4ENC_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 6 490 0 0 0 0 9

^top


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