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 Fold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of RNASampler(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Fold RNASampler(seed)
MCC 0.695 > 0.691
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.727 ± 0.209 > 0.690 ± 0.165
Sensitivity 0.736 > 0.589
Positive Predictive Value 0.664 < 0.819
Total TP 231 > 185
Total TN 22956 < 23078
Total FP 163 > 63
Total FP CONTRA 36 > 11
Total FP INCONS 81 > 30
Total FP COMP 46 > 22
Total FN 83 < 129
P-value 0.0100411242504

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Fold and RNASampler(seed)).

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

^top





Performance of Fold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 231
Total TN 22956
Total FP 163
Total FP CONTRA 36
Total FP INCONS 81
Total FP COMP 46
Total FN 83
Total Scores
MCC 0.695
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.727 ± 0.209
Sensitivity 0.736
Positive Predictive Value 0.664
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KUR_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 448 0 0 0 0 0
2KUU_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 429 1 0 0 1 0
2KUV_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 420 0 0 0 0 0
2KUW_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 452 1 0 0 1 0
2L1F_A 0.91 0.91 0.91 21 740 2 0 2 0 2
2L1F_B 0.91 0.92 0.92 22 767 2 0 2 0 2
2L94_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 339 1 0 0 1 0
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
3O58_3 0.39 0.50 0.31 11 4728 41 9 16 16 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1504 9 4 5 0 9
3W3S_B 0.94 0.91 0.97 30 1958 2 0 1 1 3
3ZEX_C 0.28 0.34 0.23 10 5330 46 9 25 12 19
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4482 43 11 18 14 15

^top



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 185
Total TN 23078
Total FP 63
Total FP CONTRA 11
Total FP INCONS 30
Total FP COMP 22
Total FN 129
Total Scores
MCC 0.691
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.690 ± 0.165
Sensitivity 0.589
Positive Predictive Value 0.819
Nr of predictions 14

^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
2KUR_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 17 450 0 0 0 0 2
2KUU_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 431 1 0 0 1 2
2KUV_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 17 422 0 0 0 0 2
2KUW_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 454 1 0 0 1 2
2L1F_A 0.83 0.70 1.00 16 747 0 0 0 0 7
2L1F_B 0.84 0.71 1.00 17 774 0 0 0 0 7
2L94_A 0.70 0.56 0.91 10 346 2 0 1 1 8
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 518 10 0 10 0 18
3O58_3 0.54 0.50 0.58 11 4745 13 5 3 5 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.72 0.55 0.94 16 1516 1 0 1 0 13
3W3S_B 0.60 0.36 1.00 12 1977 1 0 0 1 21
3ZEX_C 0.39 0.31 0.50 9 5356 14 2 7 5 20
4A1C_2 0.40 0.40 0.40 8 4496 20 4 8 8 12

^top


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