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 McQFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric McQFold Carnac(seed)
MCC 0.862 > 0.582
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.880 ± 0.065 > 0.456 ± 0.229
Sensitivity 0.849 > 0.354
Positive Predictive Value 0.877 < 0.962
Total TP 242 > 101
Total TN 37442 < 37613
Total FP 44 > 5
Total FP CONTRA 14 > 3
Total FP INCONS 20 > 1
Total FP COMP 10 > 1
Total FN 43 < 184
P-value 1.86109605532e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of McQFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 242
Total TN 37442
Total FP 44
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 20
Total FP COMP 10
Total FN 43
Total Scores
MCC 0.862
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.880 ± 0.065
Sensitivity 0.849
Positive Predictive Value 0.877
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for McQFold [ 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 0.68 0.70 0.67 16 2677 9 0 8 1 7
PDB_01092 0.81 0.75 0.89 39 10109 6 1 4 1 13
RFA_00632 0.88 0.89 0.86 25 4066 4 3 1 0 3
RFA_00636 0.73 0.71 0.74 20 3978 7 5 2 0 8
RFA_00767 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 1873 0 0 0 0 0
RFA_00768 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 1873 0 0 0 0 0
RFA_00769 0.85 0.94 0.77 17 1931 5 4 1 0 1
RFA_00770 0.88 0.78 1.00 14 2002 4 0 0 4 4
RFA_00773 0.97 1.00 0.95 18 1934 5 1 0 4 0
RFA_00779 0.97 0.94 1.00 17 1936 0 0 0 0 1
RFA_00808 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 2000 0 0 0 0 0
RFA_00809 0.79 0.81 0.76 13 2128 4 0 4 0 3

^top



Performance of Carnac(seed) - scored lower 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


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