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 RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(seed) RNAfold
MCC 0.779 > 0.711
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.774 ± 0.092 > 0.689 ± 0.147
Sensitivity 0.659 < 0.721
Positive Predictive Value 0.921 > 0.701
Total TP 442 < 484
Total TN 413762 > 413552
Total FP 105 < 388
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 70
Total FP INCONS 29 < 136
Total FP COMP 67 < 182
Total FN 229 > 187
P-value 1.42300079339e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNAfold).

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

^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 RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 484
Total TN 413552
Total FP 388
Total FP CONTRA 70
Total FP INCONS 136
Total FP COMP 182
Total FN 187
Total Scores
MCC 0.711
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.689 ± 0.147
Sensitivity 0.721
Positive Predictive Value 0.701
Nr of predictions 12

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
RFA_00606 0.67 0.67 0.68 26 21283 25 7 5 13 13
RFA_00620 0.64 0.62 0.67 24 21909 25 3 9 13 15
RFA_00626 0.96 0.92 1.00 80 56536 25 0 0 25 7
RFA_00627 0.72 0.69 0.75 60 56873 35 4 16 15 27
RFA_00628 0.93 0.91 0.96 78 57210 29 0 3 26 8
RFA_00630 0.66 0.66 0.66 57 56867 40 6 23 11 30
RFA_00814 0.79 0.80 0.77 33 25157 26 4 6 16 8
RFA_00815 0.65 0.71 0.60 29 24483 34 7 12 15 12
RFA_00816 0.59 0.66 0.53 27 23169 32 13 11 8 14
RFA_00817 0.10 0.12 0.08 5 21885 55 16 39 0 36
RFA_00818 0.59 0.63 0.55 26 20254 31 10 11 10 15
RFA_00819 0.96 0.95 0.98 39 27926 31 0 1 30 2

^top


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