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 UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(seed) UNAFold
MCC 0.779 > 0.645
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.774 ± 0.092 > 0.628 ± 0.165
Sensitivity 0.659 > 0.657
Positive Predictive Value 0.921 > 0.634
Total TP 442 > 441
Total TN 413762 > 413546
Total FP 105 < 417
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 87
Total FP INCONS 29 < 168
Total FP COMP 67 < 162
Total FN 229 < 230
P-value 2.04409141234e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 UNAFold).

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

^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 UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for UNAFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 441
Total TN 413546
Total FP 417
Total FP CONTRA 87
Total FP INCONS 168
Total FP COMP 162
Total FN 230
Total Scores
MCC 0.645
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.628 ± 0.165
Sensitivity 0.657
Positive Predictive Value 0.634
Nr of predictions 12

^top



2. Individual counts for UNAFold [ 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 0.67 0.64 0.69 25 21909 24 3 8 13 14
RFA_00626 0.87 0.84 0.91 73 56536 32 2 5 25 14
RFA_00627 0.70 0.67 0.74 58 56875 36 4 16 16 29
RFA_00628 0.86 0.83 0.89 71 57211 31 1 8 22 15
RFA_00630 0.59 0.59 0.59 51 56866 48 8 28 12 36
RFA_00814 0.77 0.78 0.76 32 25158 23 4 6 13 9
RFA_00815 0.56 0.61 0.51 25 24482 36 8 16 12 16
RFA_00816 0.60 0.66 0.55 27 23171 30 13 9 8 14
RFA_00817 0.10 0.12 0.08 5 21882 58 18 40 0 36
RFA_00818 0.19 0.22 0.17 9 20247 46 19 26 1 32
RFA_00819 0.96 0.95 0.98 39 27926 28 0 1 27 2

^top


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