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 MXScarna(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric MXScarna(20) Carnac(20)
MCC 0.621 > 0.601
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.633 ± 0.075 > 0.577 ± 0.090
Sensitivity 0.518 > 0.397
Positive Predictive Value 0.748 < 0.914
Total TP 510 > 391
Total TN 198723 < 198977
Total FP 252 > 58
Total FP CONTRA 31 > 8
Total FP INCONS 141 > 29
Total FP COMP 80 > 21
Total FN 474 < 593
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 510
Total TN 198723
Total FP 252
Total FP CONTRA 31
Total FP INCONS 141
Total FP COMP 80
Total FN 474
Total Scores
MCC 0.621
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.633 ± 0.075
Sensitivity 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.748
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for MXScarna(20) [ 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 0.66 0.57 0.76 16 2905 6 1 4 1 12
3AMU_B 0.86 0.74 1.00 20 2983 2 0 0 2 7
3G4S_9 0.52 0.40 0.68 23 7347 13 1 10 2 34
3GX2_A 0.70 0.58 0.85 23 4344 5 0 4 1 17
3IVN_B 0.74 0.58 0.95 18 2327 1 1 0 0 13
3IZ4_A 0.51 0.41 0.64 54 70791 32 7 24 1 78
3IZF_C 0.67 0.59 0.76 32 6861 11 1 9 1 22
3JYV_7 0.79 0.63 1.00 20 2830 0 0 0 0 12
3JYX_3 0.55 0.52 0.58 14 6304 23 0 10 13 13
3JYX_4 0.33 0.30 0.37 10 12219 32 2 15 15 23
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.69 0.59 0.82 27 6988 9 1 5 3 19
3O58_2 0.74 0.74 0.74 28 7222 13 4 6 3 10
3O58_3 0.52 0.40 0.67 14 12382 17 2 5 10 21
3PDR_A 0.71 0.57 0.89 41 12834 9 0 5 4 31
3RKF_A 0.72 0.53 1.00 18 2193 0 0 0 0 16
3SD1_A 0.63 0.55 0.74 23 3885 8 2 6 0 19
4A1C_3 0.64 0.56 0.75 30 7100 11 2 8 1 24
4A1C_2 0.18 0.15 0.21 5 11757 36 2 17 17 28
4AOB_A 0.62 0.55 0.72 23 4339 10 0 9 1 19
4ENB_A 0.26 0.11 0.67 2 1272 1 0 1 0 17
4ENC_A 0.60 0.37 1.00 7 1319 0 0 0 0 12

^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 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


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