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 RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of CMfinder(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNAsubopt CMfinder(20)
MCC 0.685 > 0.652
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.647 ± 0.402 < 0.662 ± 0.224
Sensitivity 0.702 > 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.678 < 0.831
Total TP 80 > 59
Total TN 8119 < 8166
Total FP 48 > 16
Total FP CONTRA 5 > 3
Total FP INCONS 33 > 9
Total FP COMP 10 > 4
Total FN 34 < 55
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNAsubopt and CMfinder(20). 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 RNAsubopt and CMfinder(20)).

  2. Comparison of performance of RNAsubopt and CMfinder(20). 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 RNAsubopt and CMfinder(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNAsubopt and CMfinder(20). 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 RNAsubopt and CMfinder(20)).

  4. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNAsubopt and CMfinder(20). 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 RNAsubopt and CMfinder(20)).

^top





Performance of RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 80
Total TN 8119
Total FP 48
Total FP CONTRA 5
Total FP INCONS 33
Total FP COMP 10
Total FN 34
Total Scores
MCC 0.685
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.647 ± 0.402
Sensitivity 0.702
Positive Predictive Value 0.678
Nr of predictions 4

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 2 11 1 9
3J2L_3 0.80 0.82 0.78 28 2984 13 1 7 5 6
3ZEX_D 0.91 0.89 0.94 31 2763 6 0 2 4 4
4FRG_B 0.36 0.38 0.38 9 1178 15 2 13 0 15

^top



Performance of CMfinder(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 59
Total TN 8166
Total FP 16
Total FP CONTRA 3
Total FP INCONS 9
Total FP COMP 4
Total FN 55
Total Scores
MCC 0.652
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.662 ± 0.224
Sensitivity 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.831
Nr of predictions 4

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J20_0 0.84 0.76 0.94 16 1202 2 1 0 1 5
3J2L_3 0.57 0.50 0.65 17 2994 11 2 7 2 17
3ZEX_D 0.70 0.54 0.90 19 2775 3 0 2 1 16
4FRG_B 0.54 0.29 1.00 7 1195 0 0 0 0 17

^top


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