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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Multilign(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for CentroidHomfold‑LAST & Multilign(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CentroidHomfold‑LAST Multilign(seed)
MCC 0.684 > 0.681
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.632 ± 0.089 > 0.547 ± 0.131
Sensitivity 0.581 < 0.649
Positive Predictive Value 0.806 > 0.717
Total TP 516 < 576
Total TN 406407 > 406244
Total FP 158 < 315
Total FP CONTRA 26 < 48
Total FP INCONS 98 < 179
Total FP COMP 34 < 88
Total FN 372 > 312
P-value 0.00027446829016

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidHomfold-LAST and Multilign(seed). 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and Multilign(seed)).

  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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and Multilign(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidHomfold-LAST and Multilign(seed). 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and Multilign(seed)).

^top





Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 516
Total TN 406407
Total FP 158
Total FP CONTRA 26
Total FP INCONS 98
Total FP COMP 34
Total FN 372
Total Scores
MCC 0.684
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.632 ± 0.089
Sensitivity 0.581
Positive Predictive Value 0.806
Nr of predictions 23

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
RFA_00416 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 1470 2 0 0 2 0
RFA_00619 - 0.29 0.23 0.36 9 22766 23 3 13 7 30
RFA_00626 0.85 0.79 0.92 69 56541 13 1 5 7 18
RFA_00628 0.86 0.78 0.94 67 57220 7 1 3 3 19
RFA_00630 0.87 0.83 0.92 72 56875 10 1 5 4 15
RFA_00654 0.62 0.39 1.00 7 2408 0 0 0 0 11
RFA_00658 0.69 0.64 0.75 9 1116 5 0 3 2 5
RFA_00664 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 983 7 0 7 0 14
RFA_00708 0.64 0.57 0.73 8 1024 3 0 3 0 6
RFA_00767 0.66 0.44 1.00 8 1883 0 0 0 0 10
RFA_00768 0.66 0.44 1.00 8 1883 0 0 0 0 10
RFA_00769 0.54 0.56 0.53 10 1934 9 4 5 0 8
RFA_00770 0.58 0.39 0.88 7 2008 1 0 1 0 11
RFA_00773 0.55 0.56 0.56 10 1935 8 3 5 0 8
RFA_00779 0.59 0.56 0.63 10 1937 6 2 4 0 8
RFA_00808 0.75 0.56 1.00 9 2007 0 0 0 0 7
RFA_00809 0.47 0.38 0.60 6 2135 4 0 4 0 10
RFA_00816 0.80 0.63 1.00 26 23194 1 0 0 1 15
RFA_00817 0.68 0.59 0.80 24 21915 9 2 4 3 17
RFA_00818 0.57 0.54 0.61 22 20265 18 8 6 4 19
SRP_00241 0.65 0.51 0.82 42 46005 10 0 9 1 40
SRP_00331 0.60 0.53 0.69 46 37608 21 1 20 0 41
SRP_00340 0.61 0.39 0.97 32 41295 1 0 1 0 50

^top



Performance of Multilign(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Multilign(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 576
Total TN 406244
Total FP 315
Total FP CONTRA 48
Total FP INCONS 179
Total FP COMP 88
Total FN 312
Total Scores
MCC 0.681
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.547 ± 0.131
Sensitivity 0.649
Positive Predictive Value 0.717
Nr of predictions 23

^top



2. Individual counts for Multilign(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
RFA_00416 0.57 0.53 0.62 8 1472 6 1 4 1 7
RFA_00619 - 0.37 0.41 0.34 16 22744 36 12 19 5 23
RFA_00626 0.90 0.85 0.95 74 56538 20 0 4 16 13
RFA_00628 0.92 0.88 0.95 76 57211 18 0 4 14 10
RFA_00630 0.83 0.80 0.86 70 56872 29 0 11 18 17
RFA_00654 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2414 1 0 1 0 18
RFA_00658 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1128 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00664 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 990 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00708 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1035 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00767 0.63 0.56 0.71 10 1877 4 0 4 0 8
RFA_00768 0.61 0.56 0.67 10 1876 5 0 5 0 8
RFA_00769 0.55 0.56 0.56 10 1935 8 3 5 0 8
RFA_00770 0.68 0.56 0.83 10 2004 2 0 2 0 8
RFA_00773 0.59 0.56 0.63 10 1937 6 1 5 0 8
RFA_00779 0.61 0.56 0.67 10 1938 5 0 5 0 8
RFA_00808 0.60 0.56 0.64 9 2002 5 0 5 0 7
RFA_00809 0.37 0.38 0.38 6 2129 10 1 9 0 10
RFA_00816 1.00 1.00 1.00 41 23179 12 0 0 12 0
RFA_00817 0.77 0.78 0.76 32 21903 13 5 5 3 9
RFA_00818 0.85 0.80 0.89 33 20264 12 1 3 8 8
SRP_00241 0.48 0.50 0.46 41 45967 50 15 33 2 41
SRP_00331 0.69 0.69 0.70 60 37589 29 2 24 3 27
SRP_00340 0.59 0.61 0.57 50 41240 44 7 31 6 32

^top


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