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 TurboFold(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) TurboFold(20)
MCC 0.637 > 0.594
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.641 ± 0.169 > 0.602 ± 0.154
Sensitivity 0.478 > 0.470
Positive Predictive Value 0.854 > 0.756
Total TP 129 > 127
Total TN 34872 > 34855
Total FP 38 < 53
Total FP CONTRA 0 < 3
Total FP INCONS 22 < 38
Total FP COMP 16 > 12
Total FN 141 < 143
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


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

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASampler(20) and TurboFold(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 TurboFold(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 129
Total TN 34872
Total FP 38
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 22
Total FP COMP 16
Total FN 141
Total Scores
MCC 0.637
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.641 ± 0.169
Sensitivity 0.478
Positive Predictive Value 0.854
Nr of predictions 8

^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
3AMU_B 0.82 0.70 0.95 19 2983 3 0 1 2 8
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_2 0.18 0.15 0.23 5 11759 30 0 17 13 28
4A1C_3 0.74 0.56 1.00 30 7110 0 0 0 0 24
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 TurboFold(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 127
Total TN 34855
Total FP 53
Total FP CONTRA 3
Total FP INCONS 38
Total FP COMP 12
Total FN 143
Total Scores
MCC 0.594
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.602 ± 0.154
Sensitivity 0.470
Positive Predictive Value 0.756
Nr of predictions 8

^top



2. Individual counts for TurboFold(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.59 0.48 0.74 20 3889 7 1 6 0 22
4A1C_2 0.18 0.15 0.21 5 11757 28 0 19 9 28
4A1C_3 0.69 0.57 0.84 31 7103 6 0 6 0 23
4AOB_A 0.56 0.40 0.77 17 4349 6 1 4 1 25
4ENB_A 0.69 0.47 1.00 9 1266 0 0 0 0 10
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10

^top


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