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 RNASampler(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(seed) Fold
MCC 0.779 > 0.631
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.774 ± 0.092 > 0.601 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.659 > 0.648
Positive Predictive Value 0.921 > 0.614
Total TP 442 > 435
Total TN 413762 > 413534
Total FP 105 < 465
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 84
Total FP INCONS 29 < 189
Total FP COMP 67 < 192
Total FN 229 < 236
P-value 1.47941000302e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASampler(seed) and Fold. 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 RNASampler(seed) and Fold).

  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 RNASampler(seed) and Fold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASampler(seed) and Fold. 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 RNASampler(seed) and Fold).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 442
Total TN 413762
Total FP 105
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 29
Total FP COMP 67
Total FN 229
Total Scores
MCC 0.779
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.774 ± 0.092
Sensitivity 0.659
Positive Predictive Value 0.921
Nr of predictions 12

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
RFA_00606 0.44 0.36 0.54 14 21295 18 7 5 6 25
RFA_00620 0.52 0.44 0.63 17 21918 15 2 8 5 22
RFA_00626 0.80 0.64 1.00 56 56560 5 0 0 5 31
RFA_00627 0.77 0.63 0.93 55 56894 8 0 4 4 32
RFA_00628 0.78 0.64 0.95 55 57233 12 0 3 9 31
RFA_00630 0.77 0.66 0.90 57 56890 15 0 6 9 30
RFA_00814 0.87 0.78 0.97 32 25167 6 0 1 5 9
RFA_00815 0.88 0.78 1.00 32 24499 8 0 0 8 9
RFA_00816 0.86 0.76 0.97 31 23188 6 0 1 5 10
RFA_00817 0.86 0.76 0.97 31 21913 1 0 1 0 10
RFA_00818 0.86 0.73 1.00 30 20271 6 0 0 6 11
RFA_00819 0.88 0.78 1.00 32 27934 5 0 0 5 9

^top



Performance of Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 435
Total TN 413534
Total FP 465
Total FP CONTRA 84
Total FP INCONS 189
Total FP COMP 192
Total FN 236
Total Scores
MCC 0.631
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.601 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.648
Positive Predictive Value 0.614
Nr of predictions 12

^top



2. Individual counts for Fold [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
RFA_00606 0.68 0.67 0.70 26 21284 27 7 4 16 13
RFA_00620 0.47 0.49 0.45 19 21903 36 7 16 13 20
RFA_00626 0.86 0.82 0.90 71 56537 35 2 6 27 16
RFA_00627 0.68 0.67 0.69 58 56869 42 7 19 16 29
RFA_00628 0.87 0.84 0.90 72 57211 30 0 8 22 14
RFA_00630 0.62 0.63 0.61 55 56863 52 9 26 17 32
RFA_00814 0.22 0.24 0.19 10 25148 51 11 31 9 31
RFA_00815 0.57 0.61 0.54 25 24485 37 4 17 16 16
RFA_00816 0.61 0.66 0.56 27 23172 33 13 8 12 14
RFA_00817 0.35 0.41 0.30 17 21889 43 11 28 4 24
RFA_00818 0.46 0.54 0.40 22 20246 38 13 20 5 19
RFA_00819 0.83 0.80 0.85 33 27927 41 0 6 35 8

^top


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