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 RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of CentroidFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) CentroidFold
MCC 0.644 > 0.610
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.662 ± 0.076 > 0.615 ± 0.086
Sensitivity 0.499 < 0.515
Positive Predictive Value 0.834 > 0.725
Total TP 457 < 472
Total TN 191070 > 190967
Total FP 145 < 209
Total FP CONTRA 20 < 36
Total FP INCONS 71 < 143
Total FP COMP 54 > 30
Total FN 459 > 444
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 457
Total TN 191070
Total FP 145
Total FP CONTRA 20
Total FP INCONS 71
Total FP COMP 54
Total FN 459
Total Scores
MCC 0.644
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.662 ± 0.076
Sensitivity 0.499
Positive Predictive Value 0.834
Nr of predictions 23

^top



2. Individual counts for RNASampler(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 0.86 0.75 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 7
3AMU_B 0.82 0.70 0.95 19 2983 3 0 1 2 8
3GX2_A 0.74 0.55 1.00 22 4349 1 0 0 1 18
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.47 0.32 0.69 42 70815 23 6 13 4 90
3IZF_C 0.74 0.57 0.97 31 6871 1 0 1 0 23
3JYV_7 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 11
3JYX_4 0.32 0.30 0.34 10 12217 26 4 15 7 23
3JYX_3 0.58 0.44 0.75 12 6312 11 0 4 7 15
3LA5_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2465 0 0 0 0 14
3NPB_A 0.68 0.48 0.96 22 6998 4 1 0 3 24
3O58_3 0.43 0.34 0.55 12 12381 18 2 8 8 23
3O58_2 0.79 0.71 0.87 27 7229 5 2 2 1 11
3PDR_A 0.70 0.53 0.93 38 12839 5 0 3 2 34
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.67 0.48 0.95 20 3895 1 0 1 0 22
4A1C_3 0.74 0.56 1.00 30 7110 0 0 0 0 24
4A1C_2 0.18 0.15 0.23 5 11759 30 0 17 13 28
4AOB_A 0.58 0.40 0.85 17 4351 4 0 3 1 25
4ENB_A 0.60 0.37 1.00 7 1268 0 0 0 0 12
4ENC_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1315 0 0 0 0 8

^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.