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 RDfolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Carnac(20) RDfolder
MCC 0.643 > 0.539
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.588 ± 0.154 > 0.555 ± 0.169
Sensitivity 0.459 > 0.427
Positive Predictive Value 0.907 > 0.691
Total TP 185 > 172
Total TN 36982 > 36937
Total FP 27 < 85
Total FP CONTRA 6 < 9
Total FP INCONS 13 < 68
Total FP COMP 8 = 8
Total FN 218 < 231
P-value 2.18141491686e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RDfolder).

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

^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 185
Total TN 36982
Total FP 27
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 13
Total FP COMP 8
Total FN 218
Total Scores
MCC 0.643
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.588 ± 0.154
Sensitivity 0.459
Positive Predictive Value 0.907
Nr of predictions 14

^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
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
3JYV_7 0.68 0.50 0.94 16 2833 1 0 1 0 16
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
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
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 RDfolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RDfolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 172
Total TN 36937
Total FP 85
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 68
Total FP COMP 8
Total FN 231
Total Scores
MCC 0.539
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.555 ± 0.169
Sensitivity 0.427
Positive Predictive Value 0.691
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for RDfolder [ 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 12 5 3 4 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 0.18 0.15 0.22 4 2985 16 2 12 2 23
3GX2_A 0.50 0.40 0.64 16 4346 10 1 8 1 24
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2830 20 0 20 0 32
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.30 0.17 0.54 7 3903 6 0 6 0 35
4AOB_A 0.35 0.26 0.48 11 4348 13 1 11 1 31
4ENB_A 0.43 0.32 0.60 6 1265 4 0 4 0 13
4ENC_A 0.43 0.32 0.60 6 1316 4 0 4 0 13

^top


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