CompaRNA - on-line benchmarks of RNA structure prediction methods

FAQ

Metric	RNAalifold(20)		ProbKnot
MCC	0.646	>	0.597
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.642 ± 0.107	>	0.609 ± 0.110
Sensitivity	0.494	<	0.536
Positive Predictive Value	0.847	>	0.669
Total TP	333	<	361
Total TN	154823	>	154676
Total FP	73	<	218
Total FP CONTRA	14	<	30
Total FP INCONS	46	<	149
Total FP COMP	13	<	39
Total FN	341	>	313
P-value	2.39162260866e-08

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

Total Scores
MCC	0.646
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals	0.642 ± 0.107
Sensitivity	0.494
Positive Predictive Value	0.847
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...	0.86	0.74	1.00	20	2983	1	0	0	1	7
3IZ4_A	tmRNA links to Rfam database...	0.53	0.35	0.82	46	70820	15	4	6	5	86
3IZF_C	5S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.71	0.59	0.86	32	6866	5	1	4	0	22
3NPB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.68	0.48	0.96	22	6998	3	1	0	2	24
3O58_3	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.37	0.26	0.53	9	12386	8	2	6	0	26
3O58_2	5S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.79	0.76	0.83	29	7225	7	3	3	1	9
3PDR_A	ykoK links to Rfam database...	0.76	0.61	0.96	44	12834	3	0	2	1	28
3RKF_A	Purine links to Rfam database...	0.68	0.50	0.94	17	2193	1	0	1	0	17
3SD1_A	THF links to Rfam database...	0.70	0.60	0.83	25	3886	5	1	4	0	17
4A1C_2	5_8S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.17	0.15	0.19	5	11755	23	2	19	2	28
4A1C_3	5S_rRNA links to Rfam database...	0.74	0.57	0.97	31	7108	1	0	1	0	23
4AOB_A	SAM links to Rfam database...	0.72	0.52	1.00	22	4349	1	0	0	1	20
4ENB_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.46	0.21	1.00	4	1271	0	0	0	0	15
4ENC_A	crcB links to Rfam database...	0.56	0.32	1.00	6	1320	0	0	0	0	13

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

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