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 Sfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(seed) Sfold
MCC 0.779 > 0.689
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.774 ± 0.092 > 0.655 ± 0.155
Sensitivity 0.659 > 0.644
Positive Predictive Value 0.921 > 0.738
Total TP 442 > 432
Total TN 413762 > 413657
Total FP 105 < 279
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 58
Total FP INCONS 29 < 95
Total FP COMP 67 < 126
Total FN 229 < 239
P-value 1.82627677697e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Sfold).

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

^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 Sfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Sfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 432
Total TN 413657
Total FP 279
Total FP CONTRA 58
Total FP INCONS 95
Total FP COMP 126
Total FN 239
Total Scores
MCC 0.689
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.655 ± 0.155
Sensitivity 0.644
Positive Predictive Value 0.738
Nr of predictions 12

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
RFA_00606 0.65 0.59 0.72 23 21289 19 7 2 10 16
RFA_00620 0.55 0.49 0.63 19 21915 22 3 8 11 20
RFA_00626 0.89 0.84 0.95 73 56539 20 1 3 16 14
RFA_00627 0.72 0.68 0.77 59 56876 30 4 14 12 28
RFA_00628 0.90 0.86 0.95 74 57213 28 0 4 24 12
RFA_00630 0.61 0.59 0.65 51 56874 38 7 21 10 36
RFA_00814 0.86 0.76 0.97 31 25168 10 0 1 9 10
RFA_00815 0.61 0.61 0.61 25 24490 21 6 10 5 16
RFA_00816 0.76 0.73 0.79 30 23182 12 8 0 4 11
RFA_00817 0.11 0.12 0.11 5 21899 41 14 27 0 36
RFA_00818 0.31 0.22 0.43 9 20280 13 8 4 1 32
RFA_00819 0.88 0.80 0.97 33 27932 25 0 1 24 8

^top


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