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 Vsfold5 - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for PPfold(20) & Vsfold5 [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric PPfold(20) Vsfold5
MCC 0.844 > 0.546
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.812 ± 0.116 > 0.604 ± 0.189
Sensitivity 0.791 > 0.544
Positive Predictive Value 0.906 > 0.561
Total TP 269 > 185
Total TN 22649 > 22616
Total FP 45 < 175
Total FP CONTRA 4 < 37
Total FP INCONS 24 < 108
Total FP COMP 17 < 30
Total FN 71 < 155
P-value 2.1413769576e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of PPfold(20) and Vsfold5. 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 Vsfold5).

  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 PPfold(20) and Vsfold5).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PPfold(20) and Vsfold5. 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 Vsfold5).

^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 269
Total TN 22649
Total FP 45
Total FP CONTRA 4
Total FP INCONS 24
Total FP COMP 17
Total FN 71
Total Scores
MCC 0.844
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.812 ± 0.116
Sensitivity 0.791
Positive Predictive Value 0.906
Nr of predictions 14

^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
2L94_A 0.66 0.50 0.90 9 347 1 0 1 0 9
3AMU_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 1138 2 0 0 2 0
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 1 0 0 1 0
3J20_0 0.95 0.95 0.95 20 1198 1 1 0 0 1
3J2L_3 0.97 0.94 1.00 32 2988 4 0 0 4 2
3RKF_A 0.86 0.79 0.95 19 846 1 0 1 0 5
3SD1_A 0.81 0.76 0.88 22 1508 3 2 1 0 7
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
4ENB_A 0.63 0.47 0.88 7 464 1 0 1 0 8
4ENC_A 0.64 0.53 0.80 8 486 2 0 2 0 7
4FRG_B 0.84 0.75 0.95 18 1183 1 0 1 0 6

^top



Performance of Vsfold5 - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Vsfold5

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 185
Total TN 22616
Total FP 175
Total FP CONTRA 37
Total FP INCONS 108
Total FP COMP 30
Total FN 155
Total Scores
MCC 0.546
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.604 ± 0.189
Sensitivity 0.544
Positive Predictive Value 0.561
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for Vsfold5 [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.97 0.94 1.00 17 340 1 0 0 1 1
3AMU_B 0.77 0.79 0.75 15 1137 8 0 5 3 4
3J20_1 0.75 0.75 0.75 15 1092 7 0 5 2 5
3J20_0 0.76 0.76 0.76 16 1198 6 3 2 1 5
3J2L_3 0.70 0.71 0.71 24 2986 13 3 7 3 10
3RKF_A 0.90 0.92 0.88 22 841 3 3 0 0 2
3SD1_A 0.13 0.14 0.15 4 1507 22 5 17 0 25
3ZEX_D 0.09 0.09 0.12 3 2771 24 5 17 2 32
4A1C_3 0.29 0.30 0.31 11 2727 26 4 21 1 26
4A1C_2 0.33 0.40 0.28 8 4487 37 8 13 16 12
4AOB_A 0.21 0.21 0.25 6 1413 19 2 16 1 23
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 0.60 0.58 0.64 14 1180 8 3 5 0 10

^top


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