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 Sfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Carnac(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Sfold Carnac(20)
MCC 0.665 > 0.662
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.656 ± 0.154 > 0.610 ± 0.164
Sensitivity 0.628 > 0.469
Positive Predictive Value 0.711 < 0.938
Total TP 285 > 213
Total TN 51862 < 52036
Total FP 148 > 24
Total FP CONTRA 38 > 6
Total FP INCONS 78 > 8
Total FP COMP 32 > 10
Total FN 169 < 241
P-value 0.0255587090362

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Sfold and Carnac(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 Sfold and Carnac(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 Sfold and Carnac(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Sfold and Carnac(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 Sfold and Carnac(20)).

^top





Performance of Sfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Sfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 285
Total TN 51862
Total FP 148
Total FP CONTRA 38
Total FP INCONS 78
Total FP COMP 32
Total FN 169
Total Scores
MCC 0.665
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.656 ± 0.154
Sensitivity 0.628
Positive Predictive Value 0.711
Nr of predictions 15

^top



2. Individual counts for Sfold [ 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 0.86 0.79 0.96 22 1426 2 1 0 1 6
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.59 0.56 0.63 53 25452 34 14 17 3 42
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1095 16 2 14 0 20
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.85 0.78 0.94 29 2247 7 0 2 5 8
3O58_3 0.51 0.50 0.52 11 4743 18 2 8 8 11
3PDR_A 0.82 0.80 0.85 40 4793 9 2 5 2 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.78 0.72 0.84 21 1508 4 2 2 0 8
4A1C_2 0.21 0.25 0.19 5 4489 34 8 14 12 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 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 5 491 0 0 0 0 10

^top



Performance of Carnac(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 213
Total TN 52036
Total FP 24
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 8
Total FP COMP 10
Total FN 241
Total Scores
MCC 0.662
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.610 ± 0.164
Sensitivity 0.469
Positive Predictive Value 0.938
Nr of predictions 15

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3A2K_C 0.88 0.77 1.00 17 1091 0 0 0 0 5
3GX2_A 0.68 0.46 1.00 13 1436 0 0 0 0 15
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.31 0.88 29 25503 4 3 1 0 66
3JYV_7 0.81 0.70 0.93 14 1096 3 0 1 2 6
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.46 0.22 1.00 8 2270 3 0 0 3 29
3O58_3 0.60 0.36 1.00 8 4756 1 0 0 1 14
3PDR_A 0.75 0.58 0.97 29 4810 3 1 0 2 21
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.72 0.55 0.94 16 1516 1 0 1 0 13
4A1C_2 0.42 0.25 0.71 5 4509 3 0 2 1 15
4AOB_A 0.59 0.48 0.74 14 1418 6 2 3 1 15
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.