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 TurboFold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric TurboFold(seed) CMfinder(seed)
MCC 0.817 > 0.576
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.743 ± 0.112 > 0.603 ± 0.094
Sensitivity 0.766 > 0.440
Positive Predictive Value 0.873 > 0.757
Total TP 603 > 346
Total TN 370478 < 370712
Total FP 222 > 126
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 15
Total FP INCONS 79 < 96
Total FP COMP 134 > 15
Total FN 184 < 441
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(seed) and CMfinder(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 TurboFold(seed) and CMfinder(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 TurboFold(seed) and CMfinder(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(seed) and CMfinder(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 TurboFold(seed) and CMfinder(seed)).

^top





Performance of TurboFold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 603
Total TN 370478
Total FP 222
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 79
Total FP COMP 134
Total FN 184
Total Scores
MCC 0.817
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.743 ± 0.112
Sensitivity 0.766
Positive Predictive Value 0.873
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
PDB_00012 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 399 3 0 0 3 0
RFA_00626 0.90 0.85 0.95 74 56538 17 0 4 13 13
RFA_00627 0.85 0.82 0.89 71 56873 23 0 9 14 16
RFA_00628 0.92 0.90 0.95 77 57210 17 0 4 13 9
RFA_00630 0.83 0.79 0.87 69 56874 22 0 10 12 18
RFA_00636 0.42 0.43 0.43 12 3977 16 2 14 0 16
RFA_00654 0.44 0.33 0.60 6 2405 5 1 3 1 12
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_00749 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 891 1 0 0 1 0
RFA_00764 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 891 1 0 0 1 0
RFA_00765 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 891 1 0 0 1 0
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 5 0 2 3 8
RFA_00773 0.71 0.56 0.91 10 1942 2 1 0 1 8
RFA_00779 0.71 0.56 0.91 10 1942 1 0 1 0 8
RFA_00808 0.75 0.56 1.00 9 2007 0 0 0 0 7
RFA_00809 0.38 0.38 0.40 6 2130 9 1 8 0 10
RFA_00814 0.92 0.85 1.00 35 25165 13 0 0 13 6
RFA_00816 1.00 1.00 1.00 41 23179 14 0 0 14 0
RFA_00817 0.95 0.90 1.00 37 21908 7 0 0 7 4
RFA_00818 0.85 0.80 0.89 33 20264 11 1 3 7 8
RFA_00819 0.98 0.95 1.00 39 27927 27 0 0 27 2

^top



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 346
Total TN 370712
Total FP 126
Total FP CONTRA 15
Total FP INCONS 96
Total FP COMP 15
Total FN 441
Total Scores
MCC 0.576
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.603 ± 0.094
Sensitivity 0.440
Positive Predictive Value 0.757
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
PDB_00012 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 399 2 0 0 2 0
RFA_00626 0.44 0.32 0.60 28 56569 22 2 17 3 59
RFA_00627 0.53 0.39 0.72 34 56906 15 3 10 2 53
RFA_00628 0.58 0.43 0.77 37 57243 14 3 8 3 49
RFA_00630 0.45 0.32 0.64 28 56909 17 3 13 1 59
RFA_00636 0.71 0.64 0.78 18 3982 5 2 3 0 10
RFA_00654 0.38 0.22 0.67 4 2409 2 0 2 0 14
RFA_00658 0.40 0.29 0.57 4 1121 4 0 3 1 10
RFA_00664 0.40 0.29 0.57 4 983 4 0 3 1 10
RFA_00708 0.40 0.29 0.57 4 1028 4 0 3 1 10
RFA_00749 0.91 0.83 1.00 10 893 0 0 0 0 2
RFA_00764 0.91 0.83 1.00 10 893 0 0 0 0 2
RFA_00765 0.91 0.83 1.00 10 893 0 0 0 0 2
RFA_00769 0.71 0.50 1.00 9 1944 0 0 0 0 9
RFA_00770 0.71 0.50 1.00 9 2007 0 0 0 0 9
RFA_00773 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1949 4 0 4 0 18
RFA_00779 0.71 0.50 1.00 9 1944 0 0 0 0 9
RFA_00808 0.68 0.56 0.82 9 2005 2 0 2 0 7
RFA_00809 0.41 0.38 0.46 6 2132 7 1 6 0 10
RFA_00814 0.68 0.51 0.91 21 25177 2 0 2 0 20
RFA_00816 0.68 0.51 0.91 21 23197 2 0 2 0 20
RFA_00817 0.68 0.56 0.82 23 21917 5 0 5 0 18
RFA_00818 0.60 0.49 0.74 20 20274 8 1 6 1 21
RFA_00819 0.62 0.51 0.75 21 27938 7 0 7 0 20

^top


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