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 Multilign(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Multilign(seed) UNAFold
MCC 0.681 > 0.543
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.547 ± 0.131 > 0.491 ± 0.111
Sensitivity 0.649 > 0.552
Positive Predictive Value 0.717 > 0.537
Total TP 576 > 490
Total TN 406244 > 406135
Total FP 315 < 519
Total FP CONTRA 48 < 109
Total FP INCONS 179 < 313
Total FP COMP 88 < 97
Total FN 312 < 398
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Multilign(seed) and UNAFold. 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 Multilign(seed) and UNAFold).

  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 Multilign(seed) and UNAFold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Multilign(seed) and UNAFold. 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 Multilign(seed) and UNAFold).

^top





Performance of Multilign(seed) - scored higher 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



Performance of UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for UNAFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 490
Total TN 406135
Total FP 519
Total FP CONTRA 109
Total FP INCONS 313
Total FP COMP 97
Total FN 398
Total Scores
MCC 0.543
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.491 ± 0.111
Sensitivity 0.552
Positive Predictive Value 0.537
Nr of predictions 23

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
RFA_00416 0.93 0.93 0.93 14 1470 4 0 1 3 1
RFA_00619 - 0.36 0.41 0.33 16 22742 43 10 23 10 23
RFA_00626 0.87 0.84 0.91 73 56536 32 2 5 25 14
RFA_00628 0.86 0.83 0.89 71 57211 31 1 8 22 15
RFA_00630 0.59 0.59 0.59 51 56866 48 8 28 12 36
RFA_00654 0.27 0.28 0.28 5 2397 13 2 11 0 13
RFA_00658 0.59 0.50 0.70 7 1118 5 0 3 2 7
RFA_00664 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 980 11 0 10 1 14
RFA_00708 0.40 0.29 0.57 4 1028 3 0 3 0 10
RFA_00767 0.63 0.56 0.71 10 1877 4 0 4 0 8
RFA_00768 0.48 0.44 0.53 8 1876 7 1 6 0 10
RFA_00769 0.54 0.56 0.53 10 1934 9 4 5 0 8
RFA_00770 0.61 0.56 0.67 10 2001 8 0 5 3 8
RFA_00773 0.71 0.56 0.91 10 1942 4 1 0 3 8
RFA_00779 0.55 0.56 0.56 10 1935 8 3 5 0 8
RFA_00808 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2001 15 2 13 0 16
RFA_00809 0.37 0.38 0.38 6 2129 10 1 9 0 10
RFA_00816 0.60 0.66 0.55 27 23171 30 13 9 8 14
RFA_00817 0.10 0.12 0.08 5 21882 58 18 40 0 36
RFA_00818 0.19 0.22 0.17 9 20247 46 19 26 1 32
SRP_00241 0.48 0.51 0.45 42 45963 53 14 37 2 40
SRP_00331 0.65 0.63 0.66 55 37592 31 2 26 3 32
SRP_00340 0.54 0.57 0.52 47 41237 46 8 36 2 35

^top


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