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 CentroidFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric MXScarna(20) CentroidFold
MCC 0.623 > 0.610
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.624 ± 0.076 > 0.615 ± 0.086
Sensitivity 0.521 > 0.515
Positive Predictive Value 0.748 > 0.725
Total TP 477 > 472
Total TN 190980 > 190967
Total FP 239 > 209
Total FP CONTRA 30 < 36
Total FP INCONS 131 < 143
Total FP COMP 78 > 30
Total FN 439 < 444
P-value 5.54865340847e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 CentroidFold).

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

^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 477
Total TN 190980
Total FP 239
Total FP CONTRA 30
Total FP INCONS 131
Total FP COMP 78
Total FN 439
Total Scores
MCC 0.623
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.624 ± 0.076
Sensitivity 0.521
Positive Predictive Value 0.748
Nr of predictions 23

^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
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
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_4 0.33 0.30 0.37 10 12219 32 2 15 15 23
3JYX_3 0.55 0.52 0.58 14 6304 23 0 10 13 13
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_3 0.52 0.40 0.67 14 12382 17 2 5 10 21
3O58_2 0.74 0.74 0.74 28 7222 13 4 6 3 10
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 CentroidFold - scored lower 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


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