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 Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNAshapes Mastr(20)
MCC 0.637 > 0.506
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.631 ± 0.162 > 0.489 ± 0.199
Sensitivity 0.637 > 0.337
Positive Predictive Value 0.644 < 0.769
Total TP 289 > 153
Total TN 51814 < 52064
Total FP 208 > 52
Total FP CONTRA 50 > 10
Total FP INCONS 110 > 36
Total FP COMP 48 > 6
Total FN 165 < 301
P-value 1.43692248862e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of RNAshapes - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAshapes

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 289
Total TN 51814
Total FP 208
Total FP CONTRA 50
Total FP INCONS 110
Total FP COMP 48
Total FN 165
Total Scores
MCC 0.637
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.631 ± 0.162
Sensitivity 0.637
Positive Predictive Value 0.644
Nr of predictions 15

^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
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3GX2_A 0.91 0.89 0.93 25 1422 3 1 1 1 3
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.57 0.58 0.56 55 25437 50 16 28 6 40
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1092 20 1 18 1 20
3LA5_A 0.89 0.80 1.00 20 934 0 0 0 0 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
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 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.