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 NanoFolder - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric NanoFolder Carnac(seed)
MCC 0.363 > 0.161
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.389 ± 0.270 > 0.078 ± 0.199
Sensitivity 0.434 > 0.026
Positive Predictive Value 0.319 < 1.000
Total TP 66 > 4
Total TN 11522 < 11725
Total FP 159 > 0
Total FP CONTRA 36 > 0
Total FP INCONS 105 > 0
Total FP COMP 18 > 0
Total FN 86 < 148
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


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

  2. Comparison of performance of NanoFolder and Carnac(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 NanoFolder and Carnac(seed)).

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

  4. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for NanoFolder and Carnac(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 NanoFolder and Carnac(seed)).

^top





Performance of NanoFolder - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 66
Total TN 11522
Total FP 159
Total FP CONTRA 36
Total FP INCONS 105
Total FP COMP 18
Total FN 86
Total Scores
MCC 0.363
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.389 ± 0.270
Sensitivity 0.434
Positive Predictive Value 0.319
Nr of predictions 6

^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
3W3S_B 0.18 0.21 0.18 7 1949 34 2 31 1 26
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
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



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 4
Total TN 11725
Total FP 0
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 0
Total FP COMP 0
Total FN 148
Total Scores
MCC 0.161
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.078 ± 0.199
Sensitivity 0.026
Positive Predictive Value 1.000
Nr of predictions 6

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.47 0.22 1.00 4 524 0 0 0 0 14
3W3S_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1989 0 0 0 0 33
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4516 0 0 0 0 20
4A1C_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2763 0 0 0 0 37
4AOB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1437 0 0 0 0 29
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 496 0 0 0 0 15

^top


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