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 PPfold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric PPfold(20) NanoFolder
MCC 0.848 > 0.329
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.802 ± 0.243 > 0.353 ± 0.217
Sensitivity 0.816 > 0.405
Positive Predictive Value 0.886 > 0.283
Total TP 155 > 77
Total TN 15965 > 15868
Total FP 35 < 216
Total FP CONTRA 1 < 62
Total FP INCONS 19 < 133
Total FP COMP 15 < 21
Total FN 35 < 113
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of PPfold(20) and NanoFolder. 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 PPfold(20) and NanoFolder).

  2. Comparison of performance of PPfold(20) and NanoFolder. 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 PPfold(20) and NanoFolder).

  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 PPfold(20) and NanoFolder).

  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 PPfold(20) and NanoFolder).

  5. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PPfold(20) and NanoFolder. 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 PPfold(20) and NanoFolder).

  6. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PPfold(20) and NanoFolder. 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 PPfold(20) and NanoFolder).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 155
Total TN 15965
Total FP 35
Total FP CONTRA 1
Total FP INCONS 19
Total FP COMP 15
Total FN 35
Total Scores
MCC 0.848
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.802 ± 0.243
Sensitivity 0.816
Positive Predictive Value 0.886
Nr of predictions 7

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 1 0 0 1 0
3J2L_3 0.97 0.94 1.00 32 2988 4 0 0 4 2
3ZEX_D 0.93 0.91 0.94 32 2762 6 0 2 4 3
4A1C_3 0.93 0.92 0.94 34 2727 2 0 2 0 3
4A1C_2 0.27 0.25 0.29 5 4499 16 1 11 4 15
4AOB_A 0.87 0.83 0.92 24 1411 4 0 2 2 5
4ENC_A 0.64 0.53 0.80 8 486 2 0 2 0 7

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 77
Total TN 15868
Total FP 216
Total FP CONTRA 62
Total FP INCONS 133
Total FP COMP 21
Total FN 113
Total Scores
MCC 0.329
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.353 ± 0.217
Sensitivity 0.405
Positive Predictive Value 0.283
Nr of predictions 7

^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
3J20_1 0.42 0.50 0.37 10 1085 20 5 12 3 10
3J2L_3 0.13 0.18 0.12 6 2969 46 14 31 1 28
3ZEX_D 0.30 0.37 0.27 13 2747 36 10 26 0 22
4A1C_3 0.58 0.68 0.51 25 2714 24 9 15 0 12
4A1C_2 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4469 61 18 29 14 20
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


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