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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for CentroidHomfold‑LAST & CentroidAlifold(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CentroidHomfold‑LAST CentroidAlifold(seed)
MCC 0.615 > 0.583
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.609 ± 0.181 > 0.531 ± 0.147
Sensitivity 0.479 > 0.347
Positive Predictive Value 0.795 < 0.984
Total TP 171 > 124
Total TN 42693 < 42782
Total FP 53 > 5
Total FP CONTRA 5 > 0
Total FP INCONS 39 > 2
Total FP COMP 9 > 3
Total FN 186 < 233
P-value 1.21584974784e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidHomfold-LAST and CentroidAlifold(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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and CentroidAlifold(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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and CentroidAlifold(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidHomfold-LAST and CentroidAlifold(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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and CentroidAlifold(seed)).

^top





Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 171
Total TN 42693
Total FP 53
Total FP CONTRA 5
Total FP INCONS 39
Total FP COMP 9
Total FN 186
Total Scores
MCC 0.615
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.609 ± 0.181
Sensitivity 0.479
Positive Predictive Value 0.795
Nr of predictions 11

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ 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 1529 11 0 11 0 20
3AMU_B 0.82 0.70 0.95 19 2983 3 0 1 2 8
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3RKF_A 0.72 0.53 1.00 18 2193 0 0 0 0 16
3SD1_A 0.64 0.45 0.90 19 3895 2 0 2 0 23
3UZL_B 0.72 0.54 0.95 20 3549 1 0 1 0 17
4A1C_3 0.68 0.56 0.83 30 7104 6 0 6 0 24
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.18 5 11753 29 5 18 6 28
4AOB_A 0.71 0.50 1.00 21 4350 1 0 0 1 21
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1315 0 0 0 0 8

^top



Performance of CentroidAlifold(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidAlifold(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 124
Total TN 42782
Total FP 5
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 2
Total FP COMP 3
Total FN 233
Total Scores
MCC 0.583
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.531 ± 0.147
Sensitivity 0.347
Positive Predictive Value 0.984
Nr of predictions 11

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidAlifold(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1540 0 0 0 0 20
3AMU_B 0.47 0.22 1.00 6 2997 0 0 0 0 21
3J16_L 0.45 0.20 1.00 6 2769 0 0 0 0 24
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.71 0.52 0.96 22 3893 1 0 1 0 20
3UZL_B 0.40 0.16 1.00 6 3564 0 0 0 0 31
4A1C_3 0.54 0.30 1.00 16 7124 0 0 0 0 38
4A1C_2 0.46 0.24 0.89 8 11772 3 0 1 2 25
4AOB_A 0.75 0.57 1.00 24 4347 1 0 0 1 18
4ENB_A 0.65 0.42 1.00 8 1267 0 0 0 0 11
4ENC_A 0.65 0.42 1.00 8 1318 0 0 0 0 11

^top


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