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 RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAsubopt Carnac(seed)
MCC 0.679 > 0.104
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.648 ± 0.181 > 0.033 ± 0.072
Sensitivity 0.677 > 0.011
Positive Predictive Value 0.690 < 1.000
Total TP 247 > 4
Total TN 26178 < 26532
Total FP 149 > 0
Total FP CONTRA 36 > 0
Total FP INCONS 75 > 0
Total FP COMP 38 > 0
Total FN 118 < 361
P-value 2.41358941668e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNAsubopt and Carnac(seed). 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 RNAsubopt and Carnac(seed)).

  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 RNAsubopt and Carnac(seed)).

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

^top





Performance of RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 247
Total TN 26178
Total FP 149
Total FP CONTRA 36
Total FP INCONS 75
Total FP COMP 38
Total FN 118
Total Scores
MCC 0.679
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.648 ± 0.181
Sensitivity 0.677
Positive Predictive Value 0.690
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
3A3A_A 0.97 0.93 1.00 28 1472 0 0 0 0 2
3GX2_A 0.53 0.54 0.54 15 1421 14 4 9 1 13
3IVN_B 0.88 0.78 1.00 18 885 0 0 0 0 5
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.84 0.78 0.91 29 2246 8 0 3 5 8
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 0.73 0.72 0.75 21 1505 7 4 3 0 8
4A1C_2 0.18 0.25 0.14 5 4481 43 13 17 13 15
4AOB_A 0.62 0.62 0.64 18 1409 11 4 6 1 11
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 7 0 7 0 10

^top



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 4
Total TN 26532
Total FP 0
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 0
Total FP COMP 0
Total FN 361
Total Scores
MCC 0.104
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.033 ± 0.072
Sensitivity 0.011
Positive Predictive Value 1.000
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.47 0.22 1.00 4 524 0 0 0 0 14
3A3A_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1500 0 0 0 0 30
3GX2_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1449 0 0 0 0 28
3IVN_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 903 0 0 0 0 23
3LA5_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 954 0 0 0 0 25
3NPB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2278 0 0 0 0 37
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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 866 0 0 0 0 24
3SD1_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1533 0 0 0 0 29
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4516 0 0 0 0 20
4AOB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1437 0 0 0 0 29
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.