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 RNASampler(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(seed) RNASLOpt
MCC 0.655 > 0.584
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.639 ± 0.088 > 0.587 ± 0.132
Sensitivity 0.572 > 0.526
Positive Predictive Value 0.755 > 0.655
Total TP 163 > 150
Total TN 37502 > 37489
Total FP 56 < 82
Total FP CONTRA 20 > 9
Total FP INCONS 33 < 70
Total FP COMP 3 = 3
Total FN 122 < 135
P-value 1.91441904741e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNASampler(seed) and RNASLOpt).

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 163
Total TN 37502
Total FP 56
Total FP CONTRA 20
Total FP INCONS 33
Total FP COMP 3
Total FN 122
Total Scores
MCC 0.655
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.639 ± 0.088
Sensitivity 0.572
Positive Predictive Value 0.755
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for RNASampler(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 0.50 0.39 0.64 9 2687 6 0 5 1 14
PDB_01092 0.72 0.62 0.84 32 10115 8 0 6 2 20
RFA_00632 0.78 0.68 0.90 19 4074 2 1 1 0 9
RFA_00636 0.85 0.75 0.95 21 3983 1 1 0 0 7
RFA_00767 0.65 0.56 0.77 10 1878 3 3 0 0 8
RFA_00768 0.65 0.56 0.77 10 1878 3 3 0 0 8
RFA_00769 0.59 0.56 0.63 10 1937 6 1 5 0 8
RFA_00770 0.52 0.39 0.70 7 2006 3 3 0 0 11
RFA_00773 0.59 0.50 0.69 9 1940 4 4 0 0 9
RFA_00779 0.65 0.56 0.77 10 1940 3 3 0 0 8
RFA_00808 0.58 0.56 0.60 9 2001 6 0 6 0 7
RFA_00809 0.36 0.38 0.35 6 2128 11 1 10 0 10

^top



Performance of RNASLOpt - scored lower 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


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