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 CRWrnafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for CRWrnafold & NanoFolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CRWrnafold NanoFolder
MCC 0.584 > 0.475
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.671 ± 0.182 > 0.628 ± 0.183
Sensitivity 0.519 > 0.484
Positive Predictive Value 0.664 > 0.474
Total TP 178 > 166
Total TN 40041 > 39959
Total FP 103 < 195
Total FP CONTRA 12 < 28
Total FP INCONS 78 < 156
Total FP COMP 13 > 11
Total FN 165 < 177
P-value 2.16131455263e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CRWrnafold 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 CRWrnafold and NanoFolder).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CRWrnafold 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 CRWrnafold and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of CRWrnafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CRWrnafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 178
Total TN 40041
Total FP 103
Total FP CONTRA 12
Total FP INCONS 78
Total FP COMP 13
Total FN 165
Total Scores
MCC 0.584
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.671 ± 0.182
Sensitivity 0.519
Positive Predictive Value 0.664
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2LDL_A - 0.85 0.73 1.00 8 343 1 0 0 1 3
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.52 0.44 0.63 17 6078 12 2 8 2 22
2LQZ_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 341 1 1 0 0 2
3J16_L 0.84 0.70 1.00 21 2754 0 0 0 0 9
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.84 32 7102 6 0 6 0 22
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.13 5 11741 44 4 31 9 28
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.59 0.48 0.74 20 4344 8 2 5 1 22
4ENC_A 0.70 0.58 0.85 11 1313 2 1 1 0 8

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 166
Total TN 39959
Total FP 195
Total FP CONTRA 28
Total FP INCONS 156
Total FP COMP 11
Total FN 177
Total Scores
MCC 0.475
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.628 ± 0.183
Sensitivity 0.484
Positive Predictive Value 0.474
Nr of predictions 14

^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
2LC8_A 0.52 0.55 0.50 11 1518 11 0 11 0 9
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 1 0 0 1 2
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.29 0.33 0.25 13 6054 38 8 30 0 26
2LQZ_A - 0.91 0.91 0.91 10 340 1 1 0 0 1
3J16_L 0.36 0.37 0.37 11 2745 19 3 16 0 19
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.61 0.57 0.66 21 3128 11 1 10 0 16
4A1C_3 0.48 0.46 0.51 25 7091 24 2 22 0 29
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11728 61 12 41 8 33
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.33 0.29 0.39 12 4340 20 1 18 1 30
4ENC_A 0.57 0.58 0.58 11 1307 9 0 8 1 8

^top


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