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 RNAshapes - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAshapes Fold
MCC 0.575 > 0.557
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.599 ± 0.130 > 0.524 ± 0.152
Sensitivity 0.604 > 0.589
Positive Predictive Value 0.553 > 0.534
Total TP 310 > 302
Total TN 75410 > 75405
Total FP 317 < 336
Total FP CONTRA 95 < 99
Total FP INCONS 156 < 165
Total FP COMP 66 < 72
Total FN 203 < 211
P-value 5.57076602694e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of RNAshapes - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAshapes

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 310
Total TN 75410
Total FP 317
Total FP CONTRA 95
Total FP INCONS 156
Total FP COMP 66
Total FN 203
Total Scores
MCC 0.575
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.599 ± 0.130
Sensitivity 0.604
Positive Predictive Value 0.553
Nr of predictions 17

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAshapes [ 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 - 0.71 0.70 0.74 23 1788 8 0 8 0 10
3IYQ_A 0.19 0.27 0.14 14 22340 95 43 43 9 37
3IZ4_A 0.57 0.58 0.56 55 25437 50 16 28 6 40
3J0L_a - 0.18 0.18 0.22 2 402 8 3 4 1 9
3NKB_B - 0.75 0.74 0.78 14 717 6 0 4 2 5
3NPB_A 0.84 0.76 0.93 28 2248 5 1 1 3 9
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 38 6 15 17 11
3PDR_A 0.80 0.80 0.80 40 4790 12 3 7 2 10
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 0.16 5 4484 41 11 16 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.