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 Carnac(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Carnac(seed) NanoFolder
MCC 0.502 > 0.469
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.388 ± 0.168 < 0.478 ± 0.129
Sensitivity 0.263 < 0.526
Positive Predictive Value 0.964 > 0.425
Total TP 132 < 264
Total TN 71498 > 71014
Total FP 27 < 419
Total FP CONTRA 1 < 87
Total FP INCONS 4 < 270
Total FP COMP 22 < 62
Total FN 370 > 238
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Carnac(seed) 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 Carnac(seed) and NanoFolder).

  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 Carnac(seed) and NanoFolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Carnac(seed) 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 Carnac(seed) and NanoFolder).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 132
Total TN 71498
Total FP 27
Total FP CONTRA 1
Total FP INCONS 4
Total FP COMP 22
Total FN 370
Total Scores
MCC 0.502
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.388 ± 0.168
Sensitivity 0.263
Positive Predictive Value 0.964
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
CRW_01603 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7140 0 0 0 0 37
PDB_01051 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 903 0 0 0 0 13
RFA_00416 0.93 0.93 0.93 14 1470 4 0 1 3 1
RFA_00434 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 1416 2 0 0 2 0
RFA_00436 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 1416 2 0 0 2 0
RFA_00442 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 1416 2 0 0 2 0
RFA_00446 0.97 0.93 1.00 14 1471 2 0 0 2 1
RFA_00604 0.56 0.31 1.00 11 13519 6 0 0 6 24
RFA_00664 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 990 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00674 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1128 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00675 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 990 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00677 0.53 0.43 0.67 6 981 4 0 3 1 8
RFA_00684 0.84 0.71 1.00 10 980 1 0 0 1 4
RFA_00703 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4278 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00716 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 946 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00717 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 903 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00730 0.64 0.42 1.00 5 898 1 0 0 1 7
RFA_00763 0.64 0.42 1.00 5 898 1 0 0 1 7
RFA_00765 0.64 0.42 1.00 5 898 1 0 0 1 7
RFA_00770 0.62 0.39 1.00 7 2009 0 0 0 0 11
RFA_00773 0.71 0.56 0.91 10 1942 1 1 0 0 8
RFA_00808 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2016 0 0 0 0 16
SRP_00200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 6903 0 0 0 0 36
SRP_00273 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 6786 0 0 0 0 40
SRP_00285 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3741 0 0 0 0 30
SRP_00338 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 5460 0 0 0 0 36

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 264
Total TN 71014
Total FP 419
Total FP CONTRA 87
Total FP INCONS 270
Total FP COMP 62
Total FN 238
Total Scores
MCC 0.469
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.478 ± 0.129
Sensitivity 0.526
Positive Predictive Value 0.425
Nr of predictions 26

^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
CRW_01603 0.41 0.46 0.38 17 7095 29 6 22 1 20
PDB_01051 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 885 18 1 17 0 13
RFA_00416 0.94 1.00 0.88 15 1468 6 2 0 4 0
RFA_00434 0.84 1.00 0.71 15 1410 8 6 0 2 0
RFA_00436 0.86 1.00 0.75 15 1411 7 5 0 2 0
RFA_00442 0.94 1.00 0.88 15 1414 4 2 0 2 0
RFA_00446 0.85 0.93 0.78 14 1467 7 3 1 3 1
RFA_00604 0.42 0.54 0.33 19 13472 53 14 25 14 16
RFA_00664 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 978 13 0 12 1 14
RFA_00674 0.12 0.14 0.13 2 1112 15 0 14 1 12
RFA_00675 0.28 0.29 0.29 4 976 10 1 9 0 10
RFA_00677 0.62 0.64 0.60 9 975 10 0 6 4 5
RFA_00684 0.74 0.71 0.77 10 977 5 2 1 2 4
RFA_00703 0.26 0.36 0.19 5 4252 32 5 16 11 9
RFA_00716 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 929 17 0 17 0 14
RFA_00717 0.64 0.64 0.64 9 889 5 2 3 0 5
RFA_00730 0.38 0.42 0.36 5 889 10 3 6 1 7
RFA_00763 0.38 0.42 0.36 5 889 10 3 6 1 7
RFA_00765 0.39 0.42 0.38 5 890 9 2 6 1 7
RFA_00770 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1996 24 0 20 4 18
RFA_00773 0.93 1.00 0.86 18 1932 9 3 0 6 0
RFA_00808 0.83 1.00 0.70 16 1993 7 7 0 0 0
SRP_00200 0.41 0.47 0.35 17 6855 31 4 27 0 19
SRP_00273 0.36 0.40 0.33 16 6737 34 6 27 1 24
SRP_00285 0.38 0.43 0.35 13 3704 24 6 18 0 17
SRP_00338 0.52 0.56 0.49 20 5419 22 4 17 1 16

^top


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