CompaRNA - on-line benchmarks of RNA structure prediction methods

FAQ

Metric	RNAalifold(20)		RNASampler(20)
MCC	0.753	>	0.732
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.747 ± 0.122	<	0.763 ± 0.114
Sensitivity	0.656	>	0.639
Positive Predictive Value	0.869	>	0.843
Total TP	298	>	290
Total TN	51920	>	51919
Total FP	66	<	93
Total FP CONTRA	18	<	24
Total FP INCONS	27	<	30
Total FP COMP	21	<	39
Total FN	156	<	164
P-value	2.53919717921e-08

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

Total Scores
MCC	0.753
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.747 ± 0.122
Sensitivity	0.656
Positive Predictive Value	0.869
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...	0.92	0.86	1.00	24	1425	1	0	0	1	4
3IVN_B	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.86	0.78	0.95	18	884	1	1	0	0	5
3IZ4_A	tmRNA links to Rfam database...	0.65	0.48	0.87	46	25483	15	4	3	8	49
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...	0.87	0.76	1.00	19	935	0	0	0	0	6
3NPB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.75	0.57	1.00	21	2257	4	0	0	4	16
3O58_3	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.42	0.36	0.50	8	4748	9	3	5	1	14
3PDR_A	ykoK links to Rfam database...	0.92	0.88	0.96	44	4794	3	1	1	1	6
3RKF_A	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.81	0.71	0.94	17	848	1	0	1	0	7
3SD1_A	THF links to Rfam database...	0.84	0.86	0.83	25	1503	5	4	1	0	4
4A1C_2	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.22	0.25	0.19	5	4490	23	5	16	2	15
4AOB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.85	0.72	1.00	21	1416	2	0	0	2	8
4ENB_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.51	0.27	1.00	4	468	0	0	0	0	11
4ENC_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.63	0.40	1.00	6	490	0	0	0	0	9

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

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