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 RNAfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for RNAfold & Fold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric RNAfold Fold
MCC 0.570 > 0.557
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.587 ± 0.136 > 0.524 ± 0.152
Sensitivity 0.610 > 0.589
Positive Predictive Value 0.538 > 0.534
Total TP 313 > 302
Total TN 75389 < 75405
Total FP 333 < 336
Total FP CONTRA 107 > 99
Total FP INCONS 162 < 165
Total FP COMP 64 < 72
Total FN 200 < 211
P-value 2.45802991547e-07

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNAfold and Fold. 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 RNAfold and Fold).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNAfold and Fold. 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 RNAfold and Fold).

^top





Performance of RNAfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 313
Total TN 75389
Total FP 333
Total FP CONTRA 107
Total FP INCONS 162
Total FP COMP 64
Total FN 200
Total Scores
MCC 0.570
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.587 ± 0.136
Sensitivity 0.610
Positive Predictive Value 0.538
Nr of predictions 17

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAfold [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 2003 9 1 0 8 3
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 0 5 0 7
3ADB_C - 0.35 0.36 0.36 12 1786 22 1 20 1 21
3IYQ_A 0.24 0.33 0.17 17 22340 95 45 38 12 34
3IZ4_A 0.56 0.60 0.52 57 25426 57 26 27 4 38
3J0L_a - 0.18 0.18 0.22 2 402 8 3 4 1 9
3NKB_B - 0.69 0.74 0.67 14 714 7 0 7 0 5
3NPB_A 0.91 0.86 0.97 32 2245 5 1 0 4 5
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 35 6 15 14 11
3PDR_A 0.90 0.90 0.90 45 4790 7 2 3 2 5
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.77 0.76 0.79 22 1505 6 4 2 0 7
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4482 43 11 18 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 485 7 0 6 1 10

^top



Performance of Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 302
Total TN 75405
Total FP 336
Total FP CONTRA 99
Total FP INCONS 165
Total FP COMP 72
Total FN 211
Total Scores
MCC 0.557
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.524 ± 0.152
Sensitivity 0.589
Positive Predictive Value 0.534
Nr of predictions 17

^top



2. Individual counts for Fold [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 2003 9 1 0 8 3
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
3ADB_C - 0.86 0.85 0.88 28 1787 4 0 4 0 5
3IYQ_A 0.24 0.33 0.18 17 22345 95 40 38 17 34
3IZ4_A 0.60 0.61 0.59 58 25437 47 16 25 6 37
3J0L_a - 0.15 0.18 0.17 2 399 11 4 6 1 9
3NKB_B - 0.41 0.42 0.42 8 716 11 4 7 0 11
3NPB_A 0.77 0.73 0.82 27 2245 11 0 6 5 10
3O58_3 0.39 0.50 0.31 11 4728 41 9 16 16 11
3PDR_A 0.93 0.92 0.94 46 4791 5 1 2 2 4
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1504 9 4 5 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.58 0.59 0.59 13 1254 9 2 7 0 9
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4482 43 11 18 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 461 7 0 6 1 10
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 8 0 7 1 10

^top


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