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 Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Sfold Mastr(20)
MCC 0.665 > 0.506
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.656 ± 0.154 > 0.489 ± 0.199
Sensitivity 0.628 > 0.337
Positive Predictive Value 0.711 < 0.769
Total TP 285 > 153
Total TN 51862 < 52064
Total FP 148 > 52
Total FP CONTRA 38 > 10
Total FP INCONS 78 > 36
Total FP COMP 32 > 6
Total FN 169 < 301
P-value 2.76499031155e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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