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(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric PPfold(seed) CentroidHomfold‑LAST
MCC 0.735 > 0.723
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.762 ± 0.075 > 0.726 ± 0.063
Sensitivity 0.691 > 0.641
Positive Predictive Value 0.783 < 0.817
Total TP 1194 > 1108
Total TN 916973 < 917142
Total FP 467 > 329
Total FP CONTRA 48 < 49
Total FP INCONS 283 > 199
Total FP COMP 136 > 81
Total FN 535 < 621
P-value 6.02521692575e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of PPfold(seed) and CentroidHomfold-LAST. 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(seed) and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  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(seed) and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PPfold(seed) and CentroidHomfold-LAST. 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(seed) and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1194
Total TN 916973
Total FP 467
Total FP CONTRA 48
Total FP INCONS 283
Total FP COMP 136
Total FN 535
Total Scores
MCC 0.735
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.762 ± 0.075
Sensitivity 0.691
Positive Predictive Value 0.783
Nr of predictions 22

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
RFA_00626 0.94 0.89 1.00 77 56539 1 0 0 1 10
RFA_00627 0.95 0.91 1.00 79 56874 4 0 0 4 8
RFA_00628 0.95 0.91 1.00 78 57213 2 0 0 2 8
RFA_00630 0.91 0.85 0.97 74 56877 5 0 2 3 13
RFA_00814 0.94 0.88 1.00 36 25164 2 0 0 2 5
RFA_00816 0.95 0.90 1.00 37 23183 2 0 0 2 4
RFA_00817 0.95 0.90 1.00 37 21908 1 0 0 1 4
RFA_00818 0.94 0.88 1.00 36 20265 2 0 0 2 5
RFA_00819 0.95 0.90 1.00 37 27929 2 0 0 2 4
SRP_00079 0.74 0.69 0.79 61 41828 28 0 16 12 27
SRP_00099 0.60 0.59 0.62 56 44760 40 2 32 6 39
SRP_00124 0.71 0.66 0.76 56 37054 27 3 15 9 29
SRP_00182 0.85 0.78 0.92 79 45970 17 0 7 10 22
SRP_00241 0.53 0.52 0.54 43 45977 49 9 27 13 39
SRP_00252 0.64 0.63 0.64 56 49054 42 5 26 11 33
SRP_00253 0.64 0.62 0.66 56 49370 40 5 24 11 34
SRP_00257 0.51 0.44 0.59 48 50959 36 5 28 3 60
SRP_00260 0.56 0.51 0.61 51 47811 39 5 28 6 49
SRP_00328 0.61 0.56 0.67 48 39549 29 5 19 5 37
SRP_00329 0.72 0.67 0.78 57 39830 26 2 14 10 28
SRP_00331 0.63 0.59 0.69 51 37601 31 2 21 8 36
SRP_00340 0.54 0.50 0.59 41 41258 42 5 24 13 41

^top



Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1108
Total TN 917142
Total FP 329
Total FP CONTRA 49
Total FP INCONS 199
Total FP COMP 81
Total FN 621
Total Scores
MCC 0.723
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.726 ± 0.063
Sensitivity 0.641
Positive Predictive Value 0.817
Nr of predictions 22

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
RFA_00626 0.85 0.79 0.92 69 56541 13 1 5 7 18
RFA_00627 0.86 0.75 0.98 65 56887 13 0 1 12 22
RFA_00628 0.86 0.78 0.94 67 57220 7 1 3 3 19
RFA_00630 0.87 0.83 0.92 72 56875 10 1 5 4 15
RFA_00814 0.96 0.93 1.00 38 25162 6 0 0 6 3
RFA_00816 0.80 0.63 1.00 26 23194 1 0 0 1 15
RFA_00817 0.68 0.59 0.80 24 21915 9 2 4 3 17
RFA_00818 0.57 0.54 0.61 22 20265 18 8 6 4 19
RFA_00819 0.95 0.93 0.97 38 27927 15 0 1 14 3
SRP_00079 0.73 0.67 0.79 59 41830 21 3 13 5 29
SRP_00099 0.65 0.55 0.78 52 44783 16 3 12 1 43
SRP_00124 0.39 0.18 0.88 15 37111 2 0 2 0 70
SRP_00182 0.83 0.75 0.93 76 45974 8 0 6 2 25
SRP_00241 0.65 0.51 0.82 42 46005 10 0 9 1 40
SRP_00252 0.56 0.52 0.61 46 49066 31 5 24 2 43
SRP_00253 0.63 0.63 0.63 57 49364 39 6 28 5 33
SRP_00257 0.83 0.74 0.93 80 50954 8 3 3 2 28
SRP_00260 0.76 0.74 0.78 74 47800 23 4 17 2 26
SRP_00328 0.67 0.66 0.69 56 39540 29 7 18 4 29
SRP_00329 0.64 0.61 0.68 52 39826 28 4 21 3 33
SRP_00331 0.60 0.53 0.69 46 37608 21 1 20 0 41
SRP_00340 0.61 0.39 0.97 32 41295 1 0 1 0 50

^top


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