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 Vsfold5 - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for Vsfold5 & Carnac(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Vsfold5 Carnac(seed)
MCC 0.556 > 0.104
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.553 ± 0.214 > 0.033 ± 0.072
Sensitivity 0.537 > 0.011
Positive Predictive Value 0.589 < 1.000
Total TP 196 > 4
Total TN 26203 < 26532
Total FP 171 > 0
Total FP CONTRA 34 > 0
Total FP INCONS 103 > 0
Total FP COMP 34 > 0
Total FN 169 < 361
P-value 1.80908287419e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Vsfold5 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 Vsfold5 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 Vsfold5 and Carnac(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Vsfold5 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 Vsfold5 and Carnac(seed)).

^top





Performance of Vsfold5 - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Vsfold5

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 196
Total TN 26203
Total FP 171
Total FP CONTRA 34
Total FP INCONS 103
Total FP COMP 34
Total FN 169
Total Scores
MCC 0.556
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.553 ± 0.214
Sensitivity 0.537
Positive Predictive Value 0.589
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for Vsfold5 [ 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 0.61 0.57 0.67 16 1425 9 0 8 1 12
3IVN_B 0.88 0.78 1.00 18 885 0 0 0 0 5
3LA5_A -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 938 16 0 16 0 25
3NPB_A 0.62 0.54 0.71 20 2250 10 1 7 2 17
3O58_3 0.51 0.59 0.45 13 4735 28 11 5 12 9
3PDR_A 0.69 0.64 0.74 32 4797 13 3 8 2 18
3RKF_A 0.90 0.92 0.88 22 841 3 3 0 0 2
3SD1_A 0.13 0.14 0.15 4 1507 22 5 17 0 25
4A1C_2 0.33 0.40 0.28 8 4487 37 8 13 16 12
4AOB_A 0.21 0.21 0.25 6 1413 19 2 16 1 23
4ENB_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 457 0 0 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0

^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.