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 Mastr(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for Mastr(20) & PPfold(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Mastr(20) PPfold(seed)
MCC 0.616 > 0.046
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.523 ± 0.207 > 0.018 ± 0.027
Sensitivity 0.493 > 0.009
Positive Predictive Value 0.779 > 0.273
Total TP 173 > 3
Total TN 27741 < 27952
Total FP 63 > 47
Total FP CONTRA 9 > 0
Total FP INCONS 40 > 8
Total FP COMP 14 < 39
Total FN 178 < 348
P-value 2.64318034126e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Mastr(20) and PPfold(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 Mastr(20) and PPfold(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 Mastr(20) and PPfold(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Mastr(20) and PPfold(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 Mastr(20) and PPfold(seed)).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 173
Total TN 27741
Total FP 63
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 40
Total FP COMP 14
Total FN 178
Total Scores
MCC 0.616
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.523 ± 0.207
Sensitivity 0.493
Positive Predictive Value 0.779
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3AMU_B 0.89 0.79 1.00 15 1142 2 0 0 2 4
3J20_1 0.26 0.25 0.29 5 1095 12 1 11 0 15
3J20_0 0.95 0.95 0.95 20 1198 2 1 0 1 1
3J2L_3 0.42 0.38 0.48 13 2993 16 2 12 2 21
3RKF_A 0.84 0.71 1.00 17 849 0 0 0 0 7
3SD1_A 0.73 0.72 0.75 21 1505 7 4 3 0 8
3ZEX_C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 5374 0 0 0 0 29
3ZEX_D 0.93 0.91 0.94 32 2762 7 0 2 5 3
4A1C_3 0.88 0.86 0.89 32 2727 7 0 4 3 5
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4516 0 0 0 0 20
4AOB_A 0.42 0.34 0.53 10 1418 10 1 8 1 19
4ENB_A 0.44 0.20 1.00 3 469 0 0 0 0 12
4ENC_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 5 491 0 0 0 0 10
4FRG_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1202 0 0 0 0 24

^top



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 3
Total TN 27952
Total FP 47
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 8
Total FP COMP 39
Total FN 348
Total Scores
MCC 0.046
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.018 ± 0.027
Sensitivity 0.009
Positive Predictive Value 0.273
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for PPfold(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3AMU_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1157 0 0 0 0 19
3J20_1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1112 0 0 0 0 20
3J20_0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1219 0 0 0 0 21
3J2L_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3020 0 0 0 0 34
3RKF_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 866 0 0 0 0 24
3SD1_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1533 0 0 0 0 29
3ZEX_C 0.15 0.07 0.33 2 5368 24 0 4 20 27
3ZEX_D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2796 0 0 0 0 35
4A1C_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2763 0 0 0 0 37
4A1C_2 0.10 0.05 0.20 1 4511 23 0 4 19 19
4AOB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1437 0 0 0 0 29
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 472 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 496 0 0 0 0 15
4FRG_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1202 0 0 0 0 24

^top


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