CompaRNA - on-line benchmarks of RNA structure prediction methods

FAQ

Metric	ProbKnot		RSpredict(20)
MCC	0.597	>	0.538
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.609 ± 0.110	>	0.522 ± 0.136
Sensitivity	0.536	>	0.424
Positive Predictive Value	0.669	<	0.686
Total TP	361	>	286
Total TN	154676	<	154799
Total FP	218	>	144
Total FP CONTRA	30	<	32
Total FP INCONS	149	>	99
Total FP COMP	39	>	13
Total FN	313	<	388
P-value	2.57237423209e-08

Comparison of performance of ProbKnot and RSpredict(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 ProbKnot and RSpredict(20)).
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 ProbKnot and RSpredict(20)).
Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for ProbKnot and RSpredict(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 ProbKnot and RSpredict(20)).

Total Scores
MCC	0.597
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.609 ± 0.110
Sensitivity	0.536
Positive Predictive Value	0.669
Nr of predictions	15

RNA Chain	Rfam family	MCC	SENS	PPV	TP	TN	FP	FP CONTRA	FP INCONS	FP COMP	FN
2XQD_Y	tRNA links to Rfam database...	0.90	0.81	1.00	22	2828	1	0	0	1	5
3AMU_B	tRNA links to Rfam database...	0.65	0.59	0.73	16	2981	8	0	6	2	11
3IZ4_A	tmRNA links to Rfam database...	0.52	0.46	0.60	61	70774	46	6	35	5	71
3IZF_C	5S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.72	0.61	0.85	33	6864	6	0	6	0	21
3NPB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.72	0.61	0.85	28	6988	8	1	4	3	18
3O58_3	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.31	0.34	0.29	12	12362	41	4	25	12	23
3O58_2	5S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.76	0.76	0.76	29	7222	10	3	6	1	9
3PDR_A	ykoK links to Rfam database...	0.74	0.64	0.85	46	12826	10	1	7	2	26
3RKF_A	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.73	0.59	0.91	20	2189	2	1	1	0	14
3SD1_A	THF links to Rfam database...	0.55	0.48	0.65	20	3885	11	2	9	0	22
4A1C_2	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.13	0.15	0.12	5	11738	49	7	31	11	28
4A1C_3	5S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.73	0.61	0.87	33	7102	6	1	4	1	21
4AOB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.50	0.40	0.63	17	4344	11	2	8	1	25
4ENB_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.73	0.58	0.92	11	1263	1	1	0	0	8
4ENC_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.45	0.42	0.50	8	1310	8	1	7	0	11

Total Scores
MCC	0.538
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.522 ± 0.136
Sensitivity	0.424
Positive Predictive Value	0.686
Nr of predictions	15

RNA Chain	Rfam family	MCC	SENS	PPV	TP	TN	FP	FP CONTRA	FP INCONS	FP COMP	FN
2XQD_Y	tRNA links to Rfam database...	0.88	0.78	1.00	21	2829	0	0	0	0	6
3AMU_B	tRNA links to Rfam database...	0.61	0.41	0.92	11	2991	1	0	1	0	16
3IZ4_A	tmRNA links to Rfam database...	0.53	0.43	0.65	57	70788	35	8	23	4	75
3IZF_C	5S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.75	0.61	0.92	33	6867	3	1	2	0	21
3NPB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.00	0.00	0.00	0	7015	6	1	5	0	46
3O58_3	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.32	0.34	0.30	12	12363	28	12	16	0	23
3O58_2	5S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.76	0.76	0.76	29	7222	10	3	6	1	9
3PDR_A	ykoK links to Rfam database...	0.67	0.49	0.92	35	12842	5	0	3	2	37
3RKF_A	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.77	0.62	0.95	21	2189	1	0	1	0	13
3SD1_A	THF links to Rfam database...	0.68	0.60	0.78	25	3884	7	1	6	0	17
4A1C_2	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.19	0.18	0.20	6	11751	30	6	18	6	27
4A1C_3	5S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.48	0.33	0.69	18	7114	8	0	8	0	36
4AOB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.28	0.14	0.55	6	4360	5	0	5	0	36
4ENB_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.48	0.32	0.75	6	1267	2	0	2	0	13
4ENC_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.45	0.32	0.67	6	1317	3	0	3	0	13

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