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 Carnac(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for Carnac(20) & NanoFolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Carnac(20) NanoFolder
MCC 0.671 > 0.329
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.585 ± 0.282 > 0.353 ± 0.217
Sensitivity 0.542 > 0.405
Positive Predictive Value 0.837 > 0.283
Total TP 103 > 77
Total TN 16017 > 15868
Total FP 29 < 216
Total FP CONTRA 2 < 62
Total FP INCONS 18 < 133
Total FP COMP 9 < 21
Total FN 87 < 113
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Carnac(20) and NanoFolder. 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 Carnac(20) and NanoFolder).

  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 Carnac(20) and NanoFolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Carnac(20) and NanoFolder. 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 Carnac(20) and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of Carnac(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Carnac(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 103
Total TN 16017
Total FP 29
Total FP CONTRA 2
Total FP INCONS 18
Total FP COMP 9
Total FN 87
Total Scores
MCC 0.671
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.585 ± 0.282
Sensitivity 0.542
Positive Predictive Value 0.837
Nr of predictions 7

^top



2. Individual counts for Carnac(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J20_1 0.89 0.80 1.00 16 1096 1 0 0 1 4
3J2L_3 0.59 0.53 0.67 18 2993 11 0 9 2 16
3ZEX_D 0.81 0.66 1.00 23 2773 3 0 0 3 12
4A1C_3 0.79 0.73 0.87 27 2732 5 0 4 1 10
4A1C_2 0.42 0.25 0.71 5 4509 3 0 2 1 15
4AOB_A 0.59 0.48 0.74 14 1418 6 2 3 1 15
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 496 0 0 0 0 15

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 77
Total TN 15868
Total FP 216
Total FP CONTRA 62
Total FP INCONS 133
Total FP COMP 21
Total FN 113
Total Scores
MCC 0.329
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.353 ± 0.217
Sensitivity 0.405
Positive Predictive Value 0.283
Nr of predictions 7

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J20_1 0.42 0.50 0.37 10 1085 20 5 12 3 10
3J2L_3 0.13 0.18 0.12 6 2969 46 14 31 1 28
3ZEX_D 0.30 0.37 0.27 13 2747 36 10 26 0 22
4A1C_3 0.58 0.68 0.51 25 2714 24 9 15 0 12
4A1C_2 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4469 61 18 29 14 20
4AOB_A 0.39 0.41 0.39 12 1406 20 4 15 1 17
4ENC_A 0.66 0.73 0.61 11 478 9 2 5 2 4

^top


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