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 Sfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Multilign(seed) Sfold
MCC 0.485 > 0.456
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.399 ± 0.173 < 0.457 ± 0.183
Sensitivity 0.386 < 0.414
Positive Predictive Value 0.619 > 0.511
Total TP 83 < 89
Total TN 22737 > 22697
Total FP 52 < 97
Total FP CONTRA 6 < 11
Total FP INCONS 45 < 74
Total FP COMP 1 < 12
Total FN 132 > 126
P-value 8.95709882289e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Sfold).

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

^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 83
Total TN 22737
Total FP 52
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 45
Total FP COMP 1
Total FN 132
Total Scores
MCC 0.485
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.399 ± 0.173
Sensitivity 0.386
Positive Predictive Value 0.619
Nr of predictions 13

^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_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

^top



Performance of Sfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Sfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 89
Total TN 22697
Total FP 97
Total FP CONTRA 11
Total FP INCONS 74
Total FP COMP 12
Total FN 126
Total Scores
MCC 0.456
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.457 ± 0.183
Sensitivity 0.414
Positive Predictive Value 0.511
Nr of predictions 13

^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
RFA_00416 0.93 0.93 0.93 14 1470 4 0 1 3 1
RFA_00654 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2401 14 2 12 0 18
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 0.74 0.56 1.00 10 1881 0 0 0 0 8
RFA_00768 0.48 0.44 0.53 8 1876 7 1 6 0 10
RFA_00769 0.52 0.56 0.50 10 1933 10 4 6 0 8
RFA_00770 0.68 0.56 0.83 10 2004 5 0 2 3 8
RFA_00773 0.57 0.56 0.59 10 1936 7 1 6 0 8
RFA_00779 0.68 0.56 0.83 10 1941 2 0 2 0 8
RFA_00808 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2000 19 2 14 3 16
RFA_00809 0.37 0.38 0.38 6 2129 10 1 9 0 10

^top


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