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 Sfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Sfold Mastr(20)
MCC 0.593 > 0.523
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.601 ± 0.088 > 0.511 ± 0.127
Sensitivity 0.492 > 0.348
Positive Predictive Value 0.718 < 0.790
Total TP 484 > 342
Total TN 198731 < 198972
Total FP 239 > 118
Total FP CONTRA 25 > 14
Total FP INCONS 165 > 77
Total FP COMP 49 > 27
Total FN 500 < 642
P-value 5.02343278931e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Sfold and Mastr(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 Sfold and Mastr(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 Sfold and Mastr(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Sfold and Mastr(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 Sfold and Mastr(20)).

^top





Performance of Sfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Sfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 484
Total TN 198731
Total FP 239
Total FP CONTRA 25
Total FP INCONS 165
Total FP COMP 49
Total FN 500
Total Scores
MCC 0.593
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.601 ± 0.088
Sensitivity 0.492
Positive Predictive Value 0.718
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for Sfold [ 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 0.53 0.53 0.53 9 2833 13 5 3 5 8
2XQD_Y 0.77 0.67 0.90 18 2830 2 0 2 0 9
3A2K_C 0.42 0.39 0.46 11 2902 13 2 11 0 17
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3G4S_9 0.51 0.39 0.69 22 7349 10 1 9 0 35
3GX2_A 0.72 0.55 0.96 22 4348 2 0 1 1 18
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.42 0.65 56 70790 31 3 27 1 76
3IZF_C 0.71 0.61 0.83 33 6863 7 0 7 0 21
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2834 16 0 16 0 32
3JYX_3 0.62 0.63 0.61 17 6300 19 1 10 8 10
3JYX_4 0.35 0.30 0.42 10 12222 23 3 11 9 23
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.77 0.65 0.91 30 6988 6 1 2 3 16
3O58_2 0.74 0.74 0.74 28 7222 11 3 7 1 10
3O58_3 0.43 0.34 0.55 12 12381 17 0 10 7 23
3PDR_A 0.69 0.56 0.85 40 12833 9 0 7 2 32
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.65 0.50 0.84 21 3891 4 1 3 0 21
4A1C_3 0.69 0.57 0.84 31 7103 6 1 5 0 23
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11751 34 2 23 9 28
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.51 0.26 1.00 5 1321 0 0 0 0 14

^top



Performance of Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 342
Total TN 198972
Total FP 118
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 77
Total FP COMP 27
Total FN 642
Total Scores
MCC 0.523
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.511 ± 0.127
Sensitivity 0.348
Positive Predictive Value 0.790
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for Mastr(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 12 5 3 4 7
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3A2K_C 0.72 0.61 0.85 17 2906 3 0 3 0 11
3AMU_B 0.77 0.59 1.00 16 2987 1 0 0 1 11
3G4S_9 0.48 0.32 0.75 18 7357 8 1 5 2 39
3GX2_A 0.39 0.28 0.55 11 4351 10 0 9 1 29
3IVN_B 0.78 0.65 0.95 20 2325 1 1 0 0 11
3IZ4_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 70876 0 0 0 0 132
3IZF_C 0.73 0.63 0.85 34 6863 7 1 5 1 20
3JYV_7 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 11
3JYX_3 0.56 0.56 0.58 15 6302 23 1 10 12 12
3JYX_4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12246 0 0 0 0 33
3LA5_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2465 0 0 0 0 14
3NPB_A 0.30 0.24 0.39 11 6993 18 1 16 1 35
3O58_2 0.76 0.76 0.76 29 7222 12 3 6 3 9
3O58_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12403 0 0 0 0 35
3PDR_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12880 0 0 0 0 72
3RKF_A 0.70 0.50 1.00 17 2194 0 0 0 0 17
3SD1_A 0.61 0.50 0.75 21 3888 7 1 6 0 21
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.84 32 7102 7 0 6 1 22
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11781 0 0 0 0 33
4AOB_A 0.39 0.26 0.58 11 4352 9 0 8 1 31
4ENB_A 0.39 0.16 1.00 3 1272 0 0 0 0 16
4ENC_A 0.51 0.26 1.00 5 1321 0 0 0 0 14

^top


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