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 MXScarna(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) MXScarna(20)
MCC 0.640 > 0.621
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.667 ± 0.075 > 0.633 ± 0.075
Sensitivity 0.491 < 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.839 > 0.748
Total TP 483 < 510
Total TN 198829 > 198723
Total FP 147 < 252
Total FP CONTRA 21 < 31
Total FP INCONS 72 < 141
Total FP COMP 54 < 80
Total FN 501 > 474
P-value 5.10776592382e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^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 483
Total TN 198829
Total FP 147
Total FP CONTRA 21
Total FP INCONS 72
Total FP COMP 54
Total FN 501
Total Scores
MCC 0.640
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.667 ± 0.075
Sensitivity 0.491
Positive Predictive Value 0.839
Nr of predictions 25

^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
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 0.86 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
3G4S_9 0.50 0.28 0.89 16 7363 2 1 1 0 41
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_3 0.58 0.44 0.75 12 6312 11 0 4 7 15
3JYX_4 0.32 0.30 0.34 10 12217 26 4 15 7 23
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_2 0.79 0.71 0.87 27 7229 5 2 2 1 11
3O58_3 0.43 0.34 0.55 12 12381 18 2 8 8 23
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 MXScarna(20) - scored lower 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


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