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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for CentroidHomfold‑LAST & CMfinder(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CentroidHomfold‑LAST CMfinder(seed)
MCC 0.577 > 0.443
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.574 ± 0.096 > 0.456 ± 0.186
Sensitivity 0.510 > 0.333
Positive Predictive Value 0.658 > 0.597
Total TP 127 > 83
Total TN 33743 < 33797
Total FP 68 > 57
Total FP CONTRA 15 > 3
Total FP INCONS 51 < 53
Total FP COMP 2 > 1
Total FN 122 < 166
P-value 1.12262428713e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidHomfold-LAST and CMfinder(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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and CMfinder(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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and CMfinder(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidHomfold-LAST and CMfinder(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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and CMfinder(seed)).

^top





Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 127
Total TN 33743
Total FP 68
Total FP CONTRA 15
Total FP INCONS 51
Total FP COMP 2
Total FN 122
Total Scores
MCC 0.577
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.574 ± 0.096
Sensitivity 0.510
Positive Predictive Value 0.658
Nr of predictions 11

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
PDB_00005 0.70 0.50 1.00 7 939 0 0 0 0 7
PDB_00716 0.25 0.22 0.29 5 2684 12 0 12 0 18
PDB_01092 0.74 0.60 0.91 31 10119 5 0 3 2 21
RFA_00632 0.51 0.50 0.52 14 4068 13 3 10 0 14
RFA_00636 0.64 0.64 0.64 18 3977 10 3 7 0 10
RFA_00769 0.54 0.56 0.53 10 1934 9 4 5 0 8
RFA_00770 0.58 0.39 0.88 7 2008 1 0 1 0 11
RFA_00773 0.55 0.56 0.56 10 1935 8 3 5 0 8
RFA_00779 0.59 0.56 0.63 10 1937 6 2 4 0 8
RFA_00808 0.75 0.56 1.00 9 2007 0 0 0 0 7
RFA_00809 0.47 0.38 0.60 6 2135 4 0 4 0 10

^top



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 83
Total TN 33797
Total FP 57
Total FP CONTRA 3
Total FP INCONS 53
Total FP COMP 1
Total FN 166
Total Scores
MCC 0.443
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.456 ± 0.186
Sensitivity 0.333
Positive Predictive Value 0.597
Nr of predictions 11

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
PDB_00005 0.47 0.36 0.63 5 938 3 0 3 0 9
PDB_00716 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2688 13 0 13 0 23
PDB_01092 0.38 0.21 0.69 11 10137 6 0 5 1 41
RFA_00632 0.27 0.25 0.29 7 4071 17 0 17 0 21
RFA_00636 0.71 0.64 0.78 18 3982 5 2 3 0 10
RFA_00769 0.71 0.50 1.00 9 1944 0 0 0 0 9
RFA_00770 0.71 0.50 1.00 9 2007 0 0 0 0 9
RFA_00773 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1949 4 0 4 0 18
RFA_00779 0.71 0.50 1.00 9 1944 0 0 0 0 9
RFA_00808 0.68 0.56 0.82 9 2005 2 0 2 0 7
RFA_00809 0.41 0.38 0.46 6 2132 7 1 6 0 10

^top


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