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 Fold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Fold Mastr(20)
MCC 0.581 > 0.483
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.567 ± 0.118 > 0.450 ± 0.179
Sensitivity 0.512 > 0.297
Positive Predictive Value 0.662 < 0.791
Total TP 345 > 200
Total TN 154695 < 154963
Total FP 213 > 61
Total FP CONTRA 24 > 6
Total FP INCONS 152 > 47
Total FP COMP 37 > 8
Total FN 329 < 474
P-value 2.94377603181e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Fold and Mastr(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 Fold and Mastr(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 Fold and Mastr(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Fold and Mastr(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 Fold and Mastr(20)).

^top





Performance of Fold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 345
Total TN 154695
Total FP 213
Total FP CONTRA 24
Total FP INCONS 152
Total FP COMP 37
Total FN 329
Total Scores
MCC 0.581
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.567 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.512
Positive Predictive Value 0.662
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
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3AMU_B 0.64 0.59 0.70 16 2980 9 0 7 2 11
3IZ4_A 0.53 0.46 0.61 61 70776 44 5 34 5 71
3IZF_C 0.70 0.59 0.82 32 6864 7 1 6 0 22
3NPB_A 0.70 0.61 0.80 28 6986 10 1 6 3 18
3O58_3 0.29 0.31 0.28 11 12363 41 3 26 12 24
3O58_2 0.71 0.71 0.71 27 7222 12 3 8 1 11
3PDR_A 0.77 0.64 0.94 46 12831 5 0 3 2 26
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.57 0.48 0.69 20 3887 9 1 8 0 22
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



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 200
Total TN 154963
Total FP 61
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 47
Total FP COMP 8
Total FN 474
Total Scores
MCC 0.483
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.450 ± 0.179
Sensitivity 0.297
Positive Predictive Value 0.791
Nr of predictions 15

^top



2. Individual counts for Mastr(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3AMU_B 0.77 0.59 1.00 16 2987 1 0 0 1 11
3IZ4_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 70876 0 0 0 0 132
3IZF_C 0.73 0.63 0.85 34 6863 7 1 5 1 20
3NPB_A 0.30 0.24 0.39 11 6993 18 1 16 1 35
3O58_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12403 0 0 0 0 35
3O58_2 0.76 0.76 0.76 29 7222 12 3 6 3 9
3PDR_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12880 0 0 0 0 72
3RKF_A 0.70 0.50 1.00 17 2194 0 0 0 0 17
3SD1_A 0.61 0.50 0.75 21 3888 7 1 6 0 21
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11781 0 0 0 0 33
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.84 32 7102 7 0 6 1 22
4AOB_A 0.39 0.26 0.58 11 4352 9 0 8 1 31
4ENB_A 0.39 0.16 1.00 3 1272 0 0 0 0 16
4ENC_A 0.51 0.26 1.00 5 1321 0 0 0 0 14

^top


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