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 RNASLOpt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Murlet(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNASLOpt Murlet(seed)
MCC 0.584 > 0.482
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.587 ± 0.132 > 0.463 ± 0.103
Sensitivity 0.526 > 0.319
Positive Predictive Value 0.655 < 0.734
Total TP 150 > 91
Total TN 37489 < 37594
Total FP 82 > 35
Total FP CONTRA 9 > 0
Total FP INCONS 70 > 33
Total FP COMP 3 > 2
Total FN 135 < 194
P-value 2.08252958266e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASLOpt and Murlet(seed). 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 RNASLOpt and Murlet(seed)).

  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 RNASLOpt and Murlet(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASLOpt and Murlet(seed). 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 RNASLOpt and Murlet(seed)).

^top





Performance of RNASLOpt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 150
Total TN 37489
Total FP 82
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 70
Total FP COMP 3
Total FN 135
Total Scores
MCC 0.584
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.587 ± 0.132
Sensitivity 0.526
Positive Predictive Value 0.655
Nr of predictions 13

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
PDB_00005 0.88 0.79 1.00 11 935 0 0 0 0 3
PDB_00716 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2680 22 0 21 1 23
PDB_01092 0.74 0.63 0.87 33 10115 7 1 4 2 19
RFA_00632 0.59 0.57 0.62 16 4069 10 2 8 0 12
RFA_00636 0.65 0.64 0.67 18 3978 9 2 7 0 10
RFA_00767 0.63 0.56 0.71 10 1877 4 0 4 0 8
RFA_00768 0.61 0.56 0.67 10 1876 5 0 5 0 8
RFA_00769 0.59 0.56 0.63 10 1937 6 1 5 0 8
RFA_00770 0.47 0.39 0.58 7 2004 5 1 4 0 11
RFA_00773 0.59 0.56 0.63 10 1937 6 1 5 0 8
RFA_00779 0.74 0.56 1.00 10 1943 0 0 0 0 8
RFA_00808 0.75 0.56 1.00 9 2007 0 0 0 0 7
RFA_00809 0.40 0.38 0.43 6 2131 8 1 7 0 10

^top



Performance of Murlet(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 91
Total TN 37594
Total FP 35
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 33
Total FP COMP 2
Total FN 194
Total Scores
MCC 0.482
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.463 ± 0.103
Sensitivity 0.319
Positive Predictive Value 0.734
Nr of predictions 13

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
PDB_00005 0.53 0.29 1.00 4 942 2 0 0 2 10
PDB_00716 0.23 0.13 0.43 3 2694 4 0 4 0 20
PDB_01092 0.69 0.48 1.00 25 10128 0 0 0 0 27
RFA_00632 0.21 0.11 0.43 3 4088 4 0 4 0 25
RFA_00636 0.21 0.11 0.43 3 3998 4 0 4 0 25
RFA_00767 0.47 0.33 0.67 6 1882 3 0 3 0 12
RFA_00768 0.41 0.28 0.63 5 1883 3 0 3 0 13
RFA_00769 0.57 0.44 0.73 8 1942 3 0 3 0 10
RFA_00770 0.57 0.44 0.73 8 2005 3 0 3 0 10
RFA_00773 0.41 0.28 0.63 5 1945 3 0 3 0 13
RFA_00779 0.47 0.33 0.67 6 1944 3 0 3 0 12
RFA_00808 0.75 0.56 1.00 9 2007 0 0 0 0 7
RFA_00809 0.50 0.38 0.67 6 2136 3 0 3 0 10

^top


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