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 Carnac(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of RNAwolf - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Carnac(seed) RNAwolf
MCC 0.582 > 0.438
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.456 ± 0.229 > 0.454 ± 0.076
Sensitivity 0.354 < 0.407
Positive Predictive Value 0.962 > 0.479
Total TP 101 < 116
Total TN 37613 > 37476
Total FP 5 < 148
Total FP CONTRA 3 < 20
Total FP INCONS 1 < 106
Total FP COMP 1 < 22
Total FN 184 > 169
P-value 2.12160100812e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Carnac(seed) and RNAwolf. 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 Carnac(seed) and RNAwolf).

  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 Carnac(seed) and RNAwolf).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Carnac(seed) and RNAwolf. 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 Carnac(seed) and RNAwolf).

^top





Performance of Carnac(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 101
Total TN 37613
Total FP 5
Total FP CONTRA 3
Total FP INCONS 1
Total FP COMP 1
Total FN 184
Total Scores
MCC 0.582
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.456 ± 0.229
Sensitivity 0.354
Positive Predictive Value 0.962
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for Carnac(seed) [ 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2701 0 0 0 0 23
PDB_01092 0.77 0.63 0.94 33 10118 3 1 1 1 19
RFA_00632 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4095 0 0 0 0 28
RFA_00636 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4005 0 0 0 0 28
RFA_00767 0.74 0.56 1.00 10 1881 0 0 0 0 8
RFA_00768 0.74 0.56 1.00 10 1881 0 0 0 0 8
RFA_00769 0.71 0.56 0.91 10 1942 1 1 0 0 8
RFA_00770 0.62 0.39 1.00 7 2009 0 0 0 0 11
RFA_00773 0.71 0.56 0.91 10 1942 1 1 0 0 8
RFA_00779 0.74 0.56 1.00 10 1943 0 0 0 0 8
RFA_00808 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2016 0 0 0 0 16
RFA_00809 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2145 0 0 0 0 16

^top



Performance of RNAwolf - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAwolf

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 116
Total TN 37476
Total FP 148
Total FP CONTRA 20
Total FP INCONS 106
Total FP COMP 22
Total FN 169
Total Scores
MCC 0.438
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.454 ± 0.076
Sensitivity 0.407
Positive Predictive Value 0.479
Nr of predictions 13

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
PDB_00005 0.42 0.36 0.50 5 936 6 0 5 1 9
PDB_00716 0.68 0.57 0.81 13 2685 3 0 3 0 10
PDB_01092 0.43 0.38 0.49 20 10112 23 2 19 2 32
RFA_00632 0.25 0.25 0.27 7 4069 22 1 18 3 21
RFA_00636 0.40 0.39 0.41 11 3978 19 1 15 3 17
RFA_00767 0.48 0.44 0.53 8 1876 8 1 6 1 10
RFA_00768 0.50 0.44 0.57 8 1877 8 1 5 2 10
RFA_00769 0.41 0.44 0.38 8 1932 13 3 10 0 10
RFA_00770 0.51 0.50 0.53 9 1999 12 2 6 4 9
RFA_00773 0.42 0.39 0.47 7 1938 12 1 7 4 11
RFA_00779 0.26 0.28 0.26 5 1934 14 6 8 0 13
RFA_00808 0.68 0.56 0.82 9 2005 2 2 0 0 7
RFA_00809 0.47 0.38 0.60 6 2135 6 0 4 2 10

^top


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