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 Carnac(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Carnac(20) McQFold
MCC 0.601 > 0.529
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.577 ± 0.090 < 0.578 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.397 < 0.456
Positive Predictive Value 0.914 > 0.618
Total TP 391 < 449
Total TN 198977 > 198678
Total FP 58 < 307
Total FP CONTRA 8 < 49
Total FP INCONS 29 < 229
Total FP COMP 21 < 29
Total FN 593 > 535
P-value 5.06544643719e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Carnac(20) and McQFold).

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 391
Total TN 198977
Total FP 58
Total FP CONTRA 8
Total FP INCONS 29
Total FP COMP 21
Total FN 593
Total Scores
MCC 0.601
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.577 ± 0.090
Sensitivity 0.397
Positive Predictive Value 0.914
Nr of predictions 25

^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
2KDQ_B 0.73 0.55 1.00 6 400 0 0 0 0 5
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 13 5 3 5 7
2XQD_Y 0.79 0.63 1.00 17 2833 0 0 0 0 10
3A2K_C 0.78 0.61 1.00 17 2909 0 0 0 0 11
3AMU_B 0.69 0.59 0.80 16 2983 6 0 4 2 11
3G4S_9 0.50 0.28 0.89 16 7363 2 1 1 0 41
3GX2_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 13 4358 0 0 0 0 27
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.47 0.23 0.94 31 70843 2 0 2 0 101
3IZF_C 0.73 0.56 0.97 30 6872 1 0 1 0 24
3JYV_7 0.68 0.50 0.94 16 2833 1 0 1 0 16
3JYX_3 0.64 0.56 0.75 15 6308 10 1 4 5 12
3JYX_4 0.46 0.21 1.00 7 12239 2 0 0 2 26
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.44 0.20 1.00 9 7012 2 0 0 2 37
3O58_2 0.83 0.71 0.96 27 7232 2 0 1 1 11
3O58_3 0.51 0.26 1.00 9 12394 0 0 0 0 26
3PDR_A 0.62 0.40 0.97 29 12850 3 0 1 2 43
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.60 0.38 0.94 16 3899 1 0 1 0 26
4A1C_3 0.67 0.52 0.88 28 7108 4 0 4 0 26
4A1C_2 0.33 0.15 0.71 5 11774 3 0 2 1 28
4AOB_A 0.49 0.33 0.74 14 4352 6 1 4 1 28
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1275 0 0 0 0 19
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1326 0 0 0 0 19

^top



Performance of McQFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 449
Total TN 198678
Total FP 307
Total FP CONTRA 49
Total FP INCONS 229
Total FP COMP 29
Total FN 535
Total Scores
MCC 0.529
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.578 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.456
Positive Predictive Value 0.618
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 396 0 0 0 0 1
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 13 5 3 5 7
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3A2K_C 0.86 0.75 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 7
3AMU_B 0.75 0.59 0.94 16 2986 3 0 1 2 11
3G4S_9 0.27 0.21 0.36 12 7348 21 1 20 0 45
3GX2_A 0.47 0.40 0.57 16 4343 13 1 11 1 24
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.42 0.36 0.49 47 70780 53 6 43 4 85
3IZF_C 0.68 0.56 0.83 30 6867 6 0 6 0 24
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2830 20 0 20 0 32
3JYX_3 0.21 0.22 0.20 6 6298 24 9 15 0 21
3JYX_4 0.20 0.21 0.19 7 12210 33 8 21 4 26
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.81 0.67 0.97 31 6989 4 1 0 3 15
3O58_2 0.83 0.71 0.96 27 7232 2 0 1 1 11
3O58_3 0.26 0.26 0.26 9 12368 26 10 16 0 26
3PDR_A 0.69 0.56 0.87 40 12834 9 0 6 3 32
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.71 0.60 0.86 25 3887 4 0 4 0 17
4A1C_3 0.25 0.22 0.29 12 7099 29 1 28 0 42
4A1C_2 0.15 0.15 0.15 5 11748 33 5 23 5 28
4AOB_A 0.42 0.33 0.54 14 4345 13 1 11 1 28
4ENB_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 15 1260 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.86 0.79 0.94 15 1310 1 1 0 0 4

^top


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