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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for CentroidHomfold‑LAST & NanoFolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CentroidHomfold‑LAST NanoFolder
MCC 0.752 > 0.374
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.778 ± 0.151 > 0.558 ± 0.155
Sensitivity 0.698 > 0.463
Positive Predictive Value 0.816 > 0.317
Total TP 338 > 224
Total TN 40406 > 40114
Total FP 128 < 530
Total FP CONTRA 17 < 156
Total FP INCONS 59 < 326
Total FP COMP 52 > 48
Total FN 146 < 260
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidHomfold-LAST 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and NanoFolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidHomfold-LAST 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 338
Total TN 40406
Total FP 128
Total FP CONTRA 17
Total FP INCONS 59
Total FP COMP 52
Total FN 146
Total Scores
MCC 0.752
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.778 ± 0.151
Sensitivity 0.698
Positive Predictive Value 0.816
Nr of predictions 23

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 517 11 0 11 0 18
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2436 4 0 4 0 29
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 1 0 0 1 1
3J16_L 0.90 0.81 1.00 17 1142 0 0 0 0 4
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 1 0 0 1 0
3J2L_3 0.94 0.94 0.94 32 2986 8 0 2 6 2
3SN2_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 10 144 0 0 0 0 2
3U4M_B - 0.78 0.73 0.84 16 1257 4 0 3 1 6
3UZL_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 1279 7 0 0 7 2
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
3W3S_B 0.94 0.88 1.00 29 1960 1 0 0 1 4
3ZEX_D 0.86 0.83 0.91 29 2764 8 0 3 5 6
3ZEX_G - 0.97 0.93 1.00 42 6465 10 0 0 10 3
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 8273 33 9 22 2 34
4A1C_2 0.24 0.25 0.24 5 4495 29 8 8 13 15
4A1C_3 0.80 0.78 0.83 29 2728 7 0 6 1 8
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.85 0.72 1.00 21 1416 1 0 0 1 8
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 0 0 0 0 4
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 89 0 0 0 0 0

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 224
Total TN 40114
Total FP 530
Total FP CONTRA 156
Total FP INCONS 326
Total FP COMP 48
Total FN 260
Total Scores
MCC 0.374
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.558 ± 0.155
Sensitivity 0.463
Positive Predictive Value 0.317
Nr of predictions 23

^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
2LC8_A 0.54 0.61 0.50 11 506 11 1 10 0 7
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.26 0.34 0.21 10 2392 41 15 23 3 19
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 3 0 0 3 0
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 2 0 0 2 1
3J16_L 0.43 0.52 0.37 11 1129 19 8 11 0 10
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
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.77 0.91 0.67 20 1246 12 6 4 2 2
3UZL_B 0.41 0.56 0.31 9 1264 25 10 10 5 7
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
3W3S_B 0.18 0.21 0.18 7 1949 34 2 31 1 26
3ZEX_D 0.30 0.37 0.27 13 2747 36 10 26 0 22
3ZEX_G - 0.04 0.07 0.04 3 6431 77 18 55 4 42
3ZEX_E - 0.03 0.06 0.02 2 8222 86 31 49 6 32
4A1C_2 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4469 61 18 29 14 20
4A1C_3 0.58 0.68 0.51 25 2714 24 9 15 0 12
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
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
4HXH_A - 0.80 1.00 0.67 6 86 3 3 0 0 0

^top


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