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 CRWrnafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for CRWrnafold & McQFold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CRWrnafold McQFold
MCC 0.674 > 0.669
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.699 ± 0.133 < 0.717 ± 0.119
Sensitivity 0.681 > 0.662
Positive Predictive Value 0.679 < 0.688
Total TP 322 > 313
Total TN 26084 < 26103
Total FP 203 > 176
Total FP CONTRA 42 > 37
Total FP INCONS 110 > 105
Total FP COMP 51 > 34
Total FN 151 < 160
P-value 0.0124164808574

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CRWrnafold and McQFold. 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 CRWrnafold and McQFold).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CRWrnafold and McQFold. 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 CRWrnafold and McQFold).

^top





Performance of CRWrnafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CRWrnafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 322
Total TN 26084
Total FP 203
Total FP CONTRA 42
Total FP INCONS 110
Total FP COMP 51
Total FN 151
Total Scores
MCC 0.674
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.699 ± 0.133
Sensitivity 0.681
Positive Predictive Value 0.679
Nr of predictions 31

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LBS_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 193 0 0 0 0 0
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
2LDL_A - 0.94 0.89 1.00 8 132 1 0 0 1 1
2LDT_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 151 0 0 0 0 0
2LHP_A - 0.96 0.93 1.00 14 247 0 0 0 0 1
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.58 0.55 0.62 16 2414 13 4 6 3 13
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2YIE_Z - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 587 15 6 9 0 8
2YIE_X - 0.53 0.57 0.50 4 536 9 1 3 5 3
3AMU_B 0.77 0.79 0.75 15 1137 8 0 5 3 4
3J0L_2 - 0.31 0.31 0.33 8 2226 23 1 15 7 18
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_a - 0.39 0.36 0.44 4 402 6 3 2 1 7
3J0L_1 - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 473 5 0 1 4 3
3J0L_h - 0.93 0.88 1.00 28 2112 0 0 0 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 506 13 3 10 0 10
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 174 4 0 2 2 2
3J16_L 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 1138 0 0 0 0 0
3SD1_A 0.63 0.66 0.61 19 1502 12 6 6 0 10
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 87 0 0 0 0 0
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 112 0 0 0 0 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 103 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 44 8 20 16 15
4A1C_3 0.85 0.84 0.86 31 2727 7 0 5 2 6
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.71 0.69 0.74 20 1410 8 4 3 1 9
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 2 0 0 2 4

^top



Performance of McQFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 313
Total TN 26103
Total FP 176
Total FP CONTRA 37
Total FP INCONS 105
Total FP COMP 34
Total FN 160
Total Scores
MCC 0.669
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.717 ± 0.119
Sensitivity 0.662
Positive Predictive Value 0.688
Nr of predictions 31

^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
2LBS_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 193 1 0 0 1 0
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 1 4 0 7
2LDL_A - 0.81 0.67 1.00 6 134 0 0 0 0 3
2LDT_A - 0.79 0.64 1.00 7 155 0 0 0 0 4
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 1 0 0 1 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.55 0.55 0.55 16 2411 15 5 8 2 13
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 3 0 0 3 0
2YIE_Z - 0.53 0.63 0.45 5 591 6 4 2 0 3
2YIE_X - 0.53 0.57 0.50 4 536 6 1 3 2 3
3AMU_B 0.86 0.79 0.94 15 1141 4 0 1 3 4
3J0L_2 - 0.29 0.31 0.30 8 2223 21 1 18 2 18
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_a - 0.21 0.18 0.29 2 404 6 3 2 1 9
3J0L_1 - 0.73 0.62 0.89 8 475 4 0 1 3 5
3J0L_h - 0.75 0.66 0.88 21 2116 3 0 3 0 11
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 509 10 2 8 0 10
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 174 4 0 2 2 2
3J16_L 0.90 0.81 1.00 17 1142 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.82 0.83 0.83 24 1504 5 1 4 0 5
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 87 2 0 0 2 0
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 112 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 103 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.95 0.91 1.00 20 1256 2 0 0 2 2
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 33 11 16 6 15
4A1C_3 0.28 0.30 0.28 11 2724 30 4 24 2 26
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ENB_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 457 0 0 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0

^top


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