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 Vsfold4 - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for Vsfold4 & Murlet(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Vsfold4 Murlet(seed)
MCC 0.603 > 0.571
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.602 ± 0.186 > 0.568 ± 0.104
Sensitivity 0.573 > 0.386
Positive Predictive Value 0.645 < 0.855
Total TP 209 > 141
Total TN 26212 < 26371
Total FP 144 > 29
Total FP CONTRA 23 > 4
Total FP INCONS 92 > 20
Total FP COMP 29 > 5
Total FN 156 < 224
P-value 2.59578924681e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Vsfold4 and Murlet(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 Vsfold4 and Murlet(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 Vsfold4 and Murlet(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Vsfold4 and Murlet(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 Vsfold4 and Murlet(seed)).

^top





Performance of Vsfold4 - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Vsfold4

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 209
Total TN 26212
Total FP 144
Total FP CONTRA 23
Total FP INCONS 92
Total FP COMP 29
Total FN 156
Total Scores
MCC 0.603
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.602 ± 0.186
Sensitivity 0.573
Positive Predictive Value 0.645
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for Vsfold4 [ 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 0 515 13 0 13 0 18
3A3A_A 0.95 0.90 1.00 27 1473 0 0 0 0 3
3GX2_A 0.60 0.57 0.64 16 1424 10 0 9 1 12
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.66 0.59 0.73 22 2248 10 0 8 2 15
3O58_3 0.12 0.14 0.11 3 4737 35 8 16 11 19
3PDR_A 0.69 0.64 0.74 32 4797 13 3 8 2 18
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.23 0.24 0.24 7 1504 22 5 17 0 22
4A1C_2 0.36 0.40 0.33 8 4492 28 4 12 12 12
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 9 487 0 0 0 0 6

^top



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 141
Total TN 26371
Total FP 29
Total FP CONTRA 4
Total FP INCONS 20
Total FP COMP 5
Total FN 224
Total Scores
MCC 0.571
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.568 ± 0.104
Sensitivity 0.386
Positive Predictive Value 0.855
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for Murlet(seed) [ 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 0 516 12 0 12 0 18
3A3A_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 12 1488 0 0 0 0 18
3GX2_A 0.70 0.50 1.00 14 1435 1 0 0 1 14
3IVN_B 0.62 0.52 0.75 12 887 4 2 2 0 11
3LA5_A 0.67 0.56 0.82 14 937 3 1 2 0 11
3NPB_A 0.59 0.35 1.00 13 2265 2 0 0 2 24
3O58_3 0.52 0.27 1.00 6 4758 1 0 0 1 16
3PDR_A 0.53 0.28 1.00 14 4826 0 0 0 0 36
3RKF_A 0.62 0.50 0.80 12 851 3 1 2 0 12
3SD1_A 0.56 0.38 0.85 11 1520 2 0 2 0 18
4A1C_2 0.59 0.35 1.00 7 4509 0 0 0 0 13
4AOB_A 0.69 0.48 1.00 14 1423 1 0 0 1 15
4ENB_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 6 466 0 0 0 0 9
4ENC_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 6 490 0 0 0 0 9

^top


Matthews Correlation Coeffient, Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value have been calculated based on the paper by Gardener & Giegerich, 2004.