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 RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(seed) RNAsubopt
MCC 0.779 > 0.643
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.774 ± 0.092 > 0.626 ± 0.120
Sensitivity 0.659 > 0.657
Positive Predictive Value 0.921 > 0.631
Total TP 442 > 441
Total TN 413762 > 413543
Total FP 105 < 439
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 81
Total FP INCONS 29 < 177
Total FP COMP 67 < 181
Total FN 229 < 230
P-value 2.1413769576e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNAsubopt).

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

^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 RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 441
Total TN 413543
Total FP 439
Total FP CONTRA 81
Total FP INCONS 177
Total FP COMP 181
Total FN 230
Total Scores
MCC 0.643
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.626 ± 0.120
Sensitivity 0.657
Positive Predictive Value 0.631
Nr of predictions 12

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
RFA_00606 0.63 0.67 0.60 26 21278 33 8 9 16 13
RFA_00620 0.46 0.46 0.46 18 21906 36 7 14 15 21
RFA_00626 0.68 0.66 0.70 57 56535 42 6 18 18 30
RFA_00627 0.72 0.68 0.77 59 56876 33 4 14 15 28
RFA_00628 0.89 0.86 0.91 74 57210 32 2 5 25 12
RFA_00630 0.58 0.60 0.57 52 56861 51 12 28 11 35
RFA_00814 0.39 0.39 0.39 16 25159 40 5 20 15 25
RFA_00815 0.65 0.71 0.59 29 24482 35 5 15 15 12
RFA_00816 0.74 0.78 0.70 32 23174 24 8 6 10 9
RFA_00817 0.35 0.41 0.30 17 21889 43 11 28 4 24
RFA_00818 0.47 0.54 0.41 22 20247 39 13 19 7 19
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.