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 McQFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric PETfold_pre2.0(seed) McQFold
MCC 0.866 > 0.580
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.837 ± 0.059 > 0.620 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.841 > 0.588
Positive Predictive Value 0.892 > 0.574
Total TP 858 > 600
Total TN 473383 > 473299
Total FP 280 < 562
Total FP CONTRA 35 < 121
Total FP INCONS 69 < 325
Total FP COMP 176 > 116
Total FN 162 < 420
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

  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 McQFold).

  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 McQFold).

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

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

^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 McQFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 600
Total TN 473299
Total FP 562
Total FP CONTRA 121
Total FP INCONS 325
Total FP COMP 116
Total FN 420
Total Scores
MCC 0.580
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.620 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.588
Positive Predictive Value 0.574
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 1 4 0 7
3J16_L 0.90 0.81 1.00 17 1142 0 0 0 0 4
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 1 0 0 1 0
3J20_2 0.55 0.56 0.55 231 421948 234 41 148 45 181
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 3 3 1 5
3J2L_3 0.71 0.68 0.74 23 2989 11 0 8 3 11
3J3D_C 0.90 0.95 0.86 18 947 3 3 0 0 1
3J3E_8 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2718 36 8 16 12 15
3J3E_7 0.61 0.59 0.65 20 2710 14 2 9 3 14
3J3F_8 0.31 0.42 0.23 8 4726 41 12 15 14 11
3J3F_7 0.21 0.22 0.22 8 2897 29 3 26 0 28
3J3V_B 0.65 0.59 0.73 16 2634 10 0 6 4 11
3UZL_B 0.62 0.75 0.52 12 1270 17 8 3 6 4
3W1K_J 0.86 0.77 0.96 24 1653 1 1 0 0 7
3W3S_B 0.49 0.45 0.54 15 1961 14 1 12 1 18
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.66 0.88 23 2770 6 1 2 3 12
3ZEX_C 0.33 0.34 0.32 10 5343 25 4 17 4 19
3ZND_W 0.24 0.38 0.16 3 1172 25 9 7 9 5
4A1C_3 0.28 0.30 0.28 11 2724 30 4 24 2 26
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 33 11 16 6 15
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ENB_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 457 0 0 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0
4FRG_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 21 1181 0 0 0 0 3
4FRN_A 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 1827 1 1 0 0 8
4JF2_A 0.92 1.00 0.86 24 1054 5 4 0 1 0

^top


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