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 CRWrnafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for CRWrnafold & Fold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CRWrnafold Fold
MCC 0.467 > 0.446
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.424 ± 0.161 > 0.368 ± 0.153
Sensitivity 0.410 > 0.394
Positive Predictive Value 0.540 > 0.514
Total TP 177 > 170
Total TN 55098 > 55095
Total FP 167 < 179
Total FP CONTRA 18 < 19
Total FP INCONS 133 < 142
Total FP COMP 16 < 18
Total FN 255 < 262
P-value 2.7402423548e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CRWrnafold and Fold. 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 CRWrnafold and Fold).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CRWrnafold and Fold. 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 CRWrnafold and Fold).

^top





Performance of CRWrnafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CRWrnafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 177
Total TN 55098
Total FP 167
Total FP CONTRA 18
Total FP INCONS 133
Total FP COMP 16
Total FN 255
Total Scores
MCC 0.467
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.424 ± 0.161
Sensitivity 0.410
Positive Predictive Value 0.540
Nr of predictions 15

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2LKR_A - 0.52 0.44 0.63 17 6078 12 2 8 2 22
3AMU_B 0.67 0.59 0.76 16 2982 7 0 5 2 11
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_a - 0.39 0.31 0.50 5 1118 5 1 4 0 11
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.24 0.28 8 6187 23 2 19 2 25
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1212 13 0 13 0 17
3J16_L 0.84 0.70 1.00 21 2754 0 0 0 0 9
3SD1_A 0.52 0.45 0.61 19 3885 12 2 10 0 23
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.13 5 11741 44 4 31 9 28
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.84 32 7102 6 0 6 0 22
4AOB_A 0.59 0.48 0.74 20 4344 8 2 5 1 22
4ENB_A 0.70 0.58 0.85 11 1262 2 1 1 0 8
4ENC_A 0.70 0.58 0.85 11 1313 2 1 1 0 8

^top



Performance of Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 170
Total TN 55095
Total FP 179
Total FP CONTRA 19
Total FP INCONS 142
Total FP COMP 18
Total FN 262
Total Scores
MCC 0.446
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.368 ± 0.153
Sensitivity 0.394
Positive Predictive Value 0.514
Nr of predictions 15

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2LKR_A - 0.85 0.79 0.91 31 6071 5 0 3 2 8
3AMU_B 0.64 0.59 0.70 16 2980 9 0 7 2 11
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_a - 0.20 0.19 0.23 3 1115 10 2 8 0 13
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.24 0.26 8 6185 25 2 21 2 25
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1213 12 0 12 0 17
3J16_L 0.63 0.53 0.76 16 2754 5 0 5 0 14
3SD1_A 0.57 0.48 0.69 20 3887 9 1 8 0 22
3U4M_B - 0.45 0.35 0.59 13 3138 9 1 8 0 24
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11744 43 5 27 11 28
4A1C_3 0.68 0.57 0.82 31 7102 7 1 6 0 23
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ENB_A 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1263 7 1 6 0 14
4ENC_A 0.31 0.26 0.38 5 1313 8 1 7 0 14

^top


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