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 CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Carnac(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric CentroidFold Carnac(20)
MCC 0.610 > 0.605
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.615 ± 0.086 > 0.574 ± 0.097
Sensitivity 0.515 > 0.403
Positive Predictive Value 0.725 < 0.913
Total TP 472 > 369
Total TN 190967 < 191214
Total FP 209 > 56
Total FP CONTRA 36 > 7
Total FP INCONS 143 > 28
Total FP COMP 30 > 21
Total FN 444 < 547
P-value 0.0940494622033

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 CentroidFold and Carnac(20)).

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

^top





Performance of CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 472
Total TN 190967
Total FP 209
Total FP CONTRA 36
Total FP INCONS 143
Total FP COMP 30
Total FN 444
Total Scores
MCC 0.610
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.615 ± 0.086
Sensitivity 0.515
Positive Predictive Value 0.725
Nr of predictions 23

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 12 5 3 4 7
2XQD_Y 0.75 0.67 0.86 18 2829 3 0 3 0 9
3A2K_C 0.44 0.43 0.46 12 2900 14 2 12 0 16
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3GX2_A 0.79 0.63 1.00 25 4346 1 0 0 1 15
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.55 0.45 0.68 59 70789 33 4 24 5 73
3IZF_C 0.68 0.61 0.77 33 6860 10 1 9 0 21
3JYV_7 0.77 0.59 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 13
3JYX_4 0.23 0.21 0.25 7 12218 25 5 16 4 26
3JYX_3 0.29 0.30 0.30 8 6301 20 8 11 1 19
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.77 0.70 0.86 32 6984 7 1 4 2 14
3O58_3 0.38 0.29 0.50 10 12383 10 0 10 0 25
3O58_2 0.82 0.76 0.88 29 7227 7 1 3 3 9
3PDR_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 43 12832 7 0 5 2 29
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.58 0.48 0.71 20 3888 8 1 7 0 22
4A1C_3 0.67 0.56 0.81 30 7103 7 1 6 0 24
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11752 29 5 19 5 28
4AOB_A 0.45 0.33 0.61 14 4348 10 1 8 1 28
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1314 1 1 0 0 8

^top



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 369
Total TN 191214
Total FP 56
Total FP CONTRA 7
Total FP INCONS 28
Total FP COMP 21
Total FN 547
Total Scores
MCC 0.605
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.574 ± 0.097
Sensitivity 0.403
Positive Predictive Value 0.913
Nr of predictions 23

^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
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
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_4 0.46 0.21 1.00 7 12239 2 0 0 2 26
3JYX_3 0.64 0.56 0.75 15 6308 10 1 4 5 12
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_3 0.51 0.26 1.00 9 12394 0 0 0 0 26
3O58_2 0.83 0.71 0.96 27 7232 2 0 1 1 11
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


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