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 Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for RNAfold & Mastr(20) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric RNAfold Mastr(20)
MCC 0.643 > 0.506
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.637 ± 0.166 > 0.489 ± 0.199
Sensitivity 0.656 > 0.337
Positive Predictive Value 0.637 < 0.769
Total TP 298 > 153
Total TN 51795 < 52064
Total FP 213 > 52
Total FP CONTRA 63 > 10
Total FP INCONS 107 > 36
Total FP COMP 43 > 6
Total FN 156 < 301
P-value 2.76499031155e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNAfold and Mastr(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 RNAfold and Mastr(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 RNAfold and Mastr(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNAfold and Mastr(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 RNAfold and Mastr(20)).

^top





Performance of RNAfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 298
Total TN 51795
Total FP 213
Total FP CONTRA 63
Total FP INCONS 107
Total FP COMP 43
Total FN 156
Total Scores
MCC 0.643
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.637 ± 0.166
Sensitivity 0.656
Positive Predictive Value 0.637
Nr of predictions 15

^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
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3GX2_A 0.81 0.79 0.85 22 1423 5 2 2 1 6
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.56 0.60 0.52 57 25426 57 26 27 4 38
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1089 22 4 18 0 20
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
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
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 Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 153
Total TN 52064
Total FP 52
Total FP CONTRA 10
Total FP INCONS 36
Total FP COMP 6
Total FN 301
Total Scores
MCC 0.506
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.489 ± 0.199
Sensitivity 0.337
Positive Predictive Value 0.769
Nr of predictions 15

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3A2K_C 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1088 3 0 3 0 5
3GX2_A 0.46 0.39 0.55 11 1429 10 2 7 1 17
3IVN_B 0.86 0.83 0.90 19 882 2 2 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 25536 0 0 0 0 95
3JYV_7 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 1092 2 0 0 2 1
3LA5_A 0.89 0.80 1.00 20 934 0 0 0 0 5
3NPB_A 0.34 0.30 0.41 11 2251 18 1 15 2 26
3O58_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4764 0 0 0 0 22
3PDR_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4840 0 0 0 0 50
3RKF_A 0.84 0.71 1.00 17 849 0 0 0 0 7
3SD1_A 0.73 0.72 0.75 21 1505 7 4 3 0 8
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4516 0 0 0 0 20
4AOB_A 0.42 0.34 0.53 10 1418 10 1 8 1 19
4ENB_A 0.44 0.20 1.00 3 469 0 0 0 0 12
4ENC_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 5 491 0 0 0 0 10

^top


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