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 RNAalifold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Carnac(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNAalifold(seed) Carnac(20)
MCC 0.685 > 0.640
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.693 ± 0.077 > 0.574 ± 0.183
Sensitivity 0.515 > 0.442
Positive Predictive Value 0.918 < 0.933
Total TP 212 > 182
Total TN 49813 < 49849
Total FP 31 > 21
Total FP CONTRA 12 > 6
Total FP INCONS 7 = 7
Total FP COMP 12 > 8
Total FN 200 < 230
P-value 2.00627773251e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNAalifold(seed) and Carnac(20)).

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

^top





Performance of RNAalifold(seed) - scored higher 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



Performance of Carnac(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 182
Total TN 49849
Total FP 21
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 7
Total FP COMP 8
Total FN 230
Total Scores
MCC 0.640
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.574 ± 0.183
Sensitivity 0.442
Positive Predictive Value 0.933
Nr of predictions 13

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3GX2_A 0.68 0.46 1.00 13 1436 0 0 0 0 15
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.31 0.88 29 25503 4 3 1 0 66
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.46 0.22 1.00 8 2270 3 0 0 3 29
3O58_3 0.60 0.36 1.00 8 4756 1 0 0 1 14
3PDR_A 0.75 0.58 0.97 29 4810 3 1 0 2 21
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.72 0.55 0.94 16 1516 1 0 1 0 13
4A1C_2 0.42 0.25 0.71 5 4509 3 0 2 1 15
4AOB_A 0.59 0.48 0.74 14 1418 6 2 3 1 15
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.