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 RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for RNAsubopt & NanoFolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric RNAsubopt NanoFolder
MCC 0.461 > 0.366
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.416 ± 0.196 > 0.390 ± 0.143
Sensitivity 0.408 > 0.376
Positive Predictive Value 0.529 > 0.364
Total TP 127 > 117
Total TN 41528 > 41447
Total FP 127 < 214
Total FP CONTRA 11 < 30
Total FP INCONS 102 < 174
Total FP COMP 14 > 10
Total FN 184 < 194
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNAsubopt and NanoFolder. 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 RNAsubopt and NanoFolder).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNAsubopt and NanoFolder. 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 RNAsubopt and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 127
Total TN 41528
Total FP 127
Total FP CONTRA 11
Total FP INCONS 102
Total FP COMP 14
Total FN 184
Total Scores
MCC 0.461
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.416 ± 0.196
Sensitivity 0.408
Positive Predictive Value 0.529
Nr of predictions 9

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAsubopt [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2LKR_A - 0.81 0.77 0.86 30 6070 9 0 5 4 9
3J16_L 0.41 0.37 0.48 11 2752 12 1 11 0 19
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3UZL_B 0.48 0.38 0.61 14 3547 9 0 9 0 23
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.82 32 7101 7 1 6 0 22
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.13 5 11742 43 5 29 9 28
4AOB_A 0.52 0.43 0.64 18 4343 11 2 8 1 24
4ENC_A 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1314 7 0 7 0 14

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 117
Total TN 41447
Total FP 214
Total FP CONTRA 30
Total FP INCONS 174
Total FP COMP 10
Total FN 194
Total Scores
MCC 0.366
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.390 ± 0.143
Sensitivity 0.376
Positive Predictive Value 0.364
Nr of predictions 9

^top



2. Individual counts for NanoFolder [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.52 0.55 0.50 11 1518 11 0 11 0 9
2LKR_A - 0.29 0.33 0.25 13 6054 38 8 30 0 26
3J16_L 0.36 0.37 0.37 11 2745 19 3 16 0 19
3U4M_B - 0.61 0.57 0.66 21 3128 11 1 10 0 16
3UZL_B 0.36 0.35 0.38 13 3536 21 3 18 0 24
4A1C_3 0.48 0.46 0.51 25 7091 24 2 22 0 29
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11728 61 12 41 8 33
4AOB_A 0.33 0.29 0.39 12 4340 20 1 18 1 30
4ENC_A 0.57 0.58 0.58 11 1307 9 0 8 1 8

^top


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