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 PPfold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for PPfold(20) & Carnac(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric PPfold(20) Carnac(seed)
MCC 0.803 > 0.000
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.786 ± 0.101 > 0.000 ± 0.000
Sensitivity 0.725 > 0.000
Positive Predictive Value 0.890 > 0.000
Total TP 876 > 0
Total TN 635616 < 636600
Total FP 207 > 0
Total FP CONTRA 4 > 0
Total FP INCONS 104 > 0
Total FP COMP 99 > 0
Total FN 332 < 1208
P-value 1.80908287419e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of PPfold(20) and Carnac(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 PPfold(20) and Carnac(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 PPfold(20) and Carnac(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PPfold(20) and Carnac(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 PPfold(20) and Carnac(seed)).

^top





Performance of PPfold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for PPfold(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 876
Total TN 635616
Total FP 207
Total FP CONTRA 4
Total FP INCONS 104
Total FP COMP 99
Total FN 332
Total Scores
MCC 0.803
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.786 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.725
Positive Predictive Value 0.890
Nr of predictions 12

^top



2. Individual counts for PPfold(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
RFA_00599 0.86 0.80 0.93 89 101379 16 3 4 9 22
RFA_00601 0.77 0.68 0.89 77 99148 20 1 9 10 37
SRP_00011 0.78 0.73 0.84 76 46269 22 0 15 7 28
SRP_00015 0.81 0.75 0.87 74 46275 21 0 11 10 25
SRP_00152 0.85 0.80 0.90 82 45662 20 0 9 11 21
SRP_00178 0.85 0.78 0.93 80 45667 17 0 6 11 22
SRP_00179 0.86 0.80 0.92 84 45965 15 0 7 8 21
SRP_00181 0.80 0.74 0.86 75 45969 21 0 12 9 27
SRP_00182 0.89 0.84 0.93 85 45965 13 0 6 7 16
SRP_00184 0.83 0.79 0.87 79 45965 24 0 12 12 21
SRP_00188 0.85 0.81 0.89 64 31053 13 0 8 5 15
SRP_00308 0.29 0.13 0.69 11 36299 5 0 5 0 77

^top



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 0
Total TN 636600
Total FP 0
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 0
Total FP COMP 0
Total FN 1208
Total Scores
MCC 0.000
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.000 ± 0.000
Sensitivity 0.000
Positive Predictive Value 0.000
Nr of predictions 12

^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
RFA_00599 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 101475 0 0 0 0 111
RFA_00601 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 99235 0 0 0 0 114
SRP_00011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 46360 0 0 0 0 104
SRP_00015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 46360 0 0 0 0 99
SRP_00152 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 45753 0 0 0 0 103
SRP_00178 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 45753 0 0 0 0 102
SRP_00179 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 46056 0 0 0 0 105
SRP_00181 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 46056 0 0 0 0 102
SRP_00182 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 46056 0 0 0 0 101
SRP_00184 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 46056 0 0 0 0 100
SRP_00188 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 31125 0 0 0 0 79
SRP_00308 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 36315 0 0 0 0 88

^top


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