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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) & Fold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric PETfold_pre2.0(seed) Fold
MCC 0.866 > 0.590
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.837 ± 0.059 > 0.574 ± 0.129
Sensitivity 0.841 > 0.616
Positive Predictive Value 0.892 > 0.567
Total TP 858 > 628
Total TN 473383 > 473238
Total FP 280 < 640
Total FP CONTRA 35 < 113
Total FP INCONS 69 < 366
Total FP COMP 176 > 161
Total FN 162 < 392
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Fold. 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Fold).

  2. Comparison of performance of PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Fold. 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Fold).

  3. 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Fold).

  4. 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Fold).

  5. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Fold. 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Fold).

  6. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Fold. 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Fold).

^top





Performance of PETfold_pre2.0(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for PETfold_pre2.0(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 858
Total TN 473383
Total FP 280
Total FP CONTRA 35
Total FP INCONS 69
Total FP COMP 176
Total FN 162
Total Scores
MCC 0.866
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.837 ± 0.059
Sensitivity 0.841
Positive Predictive Value 0.892
Nr of predictions 26

^top



2. Individual counts for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.41 0.33 0.55 6 517 5 0 5 0 12
3J16_L 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 1138 1 0 0 1 0
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 2 0 0 2 0
3J20_2 0.86 0.86 0.86 356 421956 129 18 38 73 56
3J20_0 0.95 0.95 0.95 20 1198 2 1 0 1 1
3J2L_3 0.97 0.94 1.00 32 2988 5 0 0 5 2
3J3D_C 0.90 0.95 0.86 18 947 4 3 0 1 1
3J3E_8 0.71 0.67 0.77 10 2729 8 1 2 5 5
3J3E_7 0.97 0.97 0.97 33 2707 6 0 1 5 1
3J3F_8 0.86 0.84 0.89 16 4743 13 2 0 11 3
3J3F_7 0.99 0.97 1.00 35 2899 4 0 0 4 1
3J3V_B 0.90 0.89 0.92 24 2630 14 0 2 12 3
3UZL_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 1279 8 0 0 8 2
3W1K_J 0.85 0.81 0.89 25 1650 4 2 1 1 6
3W3S_B 0.80 0.73 0.89 24 1962 6 1 2 3 9
3ZEX_D 0.96 0.94 0.97 33 2762 6 0 1 5 2
3ZEX_C 0.70 0.59 0.85 17 5354 12 1 2 9 12
3ZND_W 0.67 0.75 0.60 6 1181 16 0 4 12 2
4A1C_3 1.00 1.00 1.00 37 2726 2 0 0 2 0
4A1C_2 0.79 0.75 0.83 15 4498 12 1 2 9 5
4AOB_A 0.85 0.79 0.92 23 1412 4 0 2 2 6
4ENB_A 0.61 0.53 0.73 8 461 5 1 2 2 7
4ENC_A 0.61 0.53 0.73 8 485 5 1 2 2 7
4FRG_B 0.87 0.83 0.91 20 1180 3 0 2 1 4
4FRN_A 0.83 0.79 0.88 22 1823 3 2 1 0 6
4JF2_A 0.76 0.63 0.94 15 1066 1 1 0 0 9

^top



Performance of Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 628
Total TN 473238
Total FP 640
Total FP CONTRA 113
Total FP INCONS 366
Total FP COMP 161
Total FN 392
Total Scores
MCC 0.590
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.574 ± 0.129
Sensitivity 0.616
Positive Predictive Value 0.567
Nr of predictions 26

^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
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
3J16_L 0.76 0.76 0.76 16 1138 5 0 5 0 5
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 1 0 0 1 0
3J20_2 0.55 0.58 0.53 239 421918 270 31 180 59 173
3J20_0 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1196 12 3 8 1 9
3J2L_3 0.80 0.82 0.78 28 2984 12 1 7 4 6
3J3D_C 0.47 0.53 0.43 10 945 13 5 8 0 9
3J3E_8 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2719 34 5 18 11 15
3J3E_7 0.59 0.59 0.61 20 2708 15 2 11 2 14
3J3F_8 0.32 0.42 0.25 8 4729 41 12 12 17 11
3J3F_7 0.94 0.94 0.94 34 2898 4 1 1 2 2
3J3V_B 0.74 0.78 0.70 21 2626 17 2 7 8 6
3UZL_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 1277 8 0 0 8 0
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.94 0.91 0.97 30 1958 2 0 1 1 3
3ZEX_D 0.90 0.86 0.94 30 2764 8 0 2 6 5
3ZEX_C 0.28 0.34 0.23 10 5330 46 9 25 12 19
3ZND_W 0.24 0.38 0.16 3 1172 25 9 7 9 5
4A1C_3 0.86 0.84 0.89 31 2728 7 0 4 3 6
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4482 43 11 18 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 461 7 0 6 1 10
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 8 0 7 1 10
4FRG_B 0.22 0.25 0.23 6 1176 20 7 13 0 18
4FRN_A 0.46 0.46 0.46 13 1820 15 7 8 0 15
4JF2_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 19 1063 0 0 0 0 5

^top


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