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 IPknot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of MXScarna(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric IPknot MXScarna(20)
MCC 0.712 > 0.707
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.707 ± 0.119 > 0.694 ± 0.143
Sensitivity 0.678 > 0.667
Positive Predictive Value 0.756 < 0.757
Total TP 238 > 234
Total TN 27648 < 27654
Total FP 105 < 121
Total FP CONTRA 18 < 25
Total FP INCONS 59 > 50
Total FP COMP 28 < 46
Total FN 113 < 117
P-value 0.00187401051877

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of IPknot and MXScarna(20). 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 IPknot and MXScarna(20)).

  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 IPknot and MXScarna(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for IPknot and MXScarna(20). 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 IPknot and MXScarna(20)).

^top





Performance of IPknot - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for IPknot

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 238
Total TN 27648
Total FP 105
Total FP CONTRA 18
Total FP INCONS 59
Total FP COMP 28
Total FN 113
Total Scores
MCC 0.712
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.707 ± 0.119
Sensitivity 0.678
Positive Predictive Value 0.756
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3AMU_B 0.81 0.79 0.83 15 1139 6 0 3 3 4
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 1 0 0 1 0
3J20_0 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1196 12 3 8 1 9
3J2L_3 0.82 0.82 0.82 28 2986 10 0 6 4 6
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.74 0.69 0.80 20 1508 5 0 5 0 9
3ZEX_C 0.51 0.34 0.77 10 5361 7 1 2 4 19
3ZEX_D 0.81 0.80 0.82 28 2762 10 0 6 4 7
4A1C_3 0.83 0.81 0.86 30 2728 7 0 5 2 7
4A1C_2 0.23 0.25 0.22 5 4493 26 8 10 8 15
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.59 0.53 0.67 8 484 4 0 4 0 7
4FRG_B 0.75 0.71 0.81 17 1181 4 3 1 0 7

^top



Performance of MXScarna(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 234
Total TN 27654
Total FP 121
Total FP CONTRA 25
Total FP INCONS 50
Total FP COMP 46
Total FN 117
Total Scores
MCC 0.707
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.694 ± 0.143
Sensitivity 0.667
Positive Predictive Value 0.757
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3AMU_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 1138 3 0 0 3 0
3J20_1 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 1093 1 0 0 1 1
3J20_0 0.93 0.90 0.95 19 1199 1 1 0 0 2
3J2L_3 0.67 0.65 0.71 22 2989 11 3 6 2 12
3RKF_A 0.86 0.75 1.00 18 848 0 0 0 0 6
3SD1_A 0.74 0.76 0.73 22 1503 9 6 2 1 7
3ZEX_C 0.35 0.31 0.41 9 5352 15 3 10 2 20
3ZEX_D 0.85 0.83 0.88 29 2763 13 0 4 9 6
4A1C_3 0.80 0.78 0.83 29 2728 12 0 6 6 8
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.21 5 4492 36 8 11 17 15
4AOB_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1408 13 2 7 4 9
4ENB_A 0.29 0.13 0.67 2 469 1 0 1 0 13
4ENC_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 7 489 0 0 0 0 8
4FRG_B 0.65 0.58 0.74 14 1183 6 2 3 1 10

^top


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