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 Murlet(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Murlet(seed) Sfold
MCC 0.482 > 0.475
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.463 ± 0.103 < 0.486 ± 0.170
Sensitivity 0.319 < 0.442
Positive Predictive Value 0.734 > 0.519
Total TP 91 < 126
Total TN 37594 > 37475
Total FP 35 < 126
Total FP CONTRA 0 < 14
Total FP INCONS 33 < 103
Total FP COMP 2 < 9
Total FN 194 > 159
P-value 0.0139632814123

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Murlet(seed) and Sfold).

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

^top





Performance of Murlet(seed) - scored higher 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



Performance of Sfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Sfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 126
Total TN 37475
Total FP 126
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 103
Total FP COMP 9
Total FN 159
Total Scores
MCC 0.475
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.486 ± 0.170
Sensitivity 0.442
Positive Predictive Value 0.519
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for Sfold [ 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 2678 24 1 22 1 23
PDB_01092 0.76 0.63 0.92 33 10117 5 0 3 2 19
RFA_00632 0.24 0.25 0.25 7 4067 21 2 19 0 21
RFA_00636 0.40 0.39 0.41 11 3978 16 2 14 0 17
RFA_00767 0.74 0.56 1.00 10 1881 0 0 0 0 8
RFA_00768 0.48 0.44 0.53 8 1876 7 1 6 0 10
RFA_00769 0.52 0.56 0.50 10 1933 10 4 6 0 8
RFA_00770 0.68 0.56 0.83 10 2004 5 0 2 3 8
RFA_00773 0.57 0.56 0.59 10 1936 7 1 6 0 8
RFA_00779 0.68 0.56 0.83 10 1941 2 0 2 0 8
RFA_00808 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2000 19 2 14 3 16
RFA_00809 0.37 0.38 0.38 6 2129 10 1 9 0 10

^top


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