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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric CentroidHomfold‑LAST NanoFolder
MCC 0.623 > 0.323
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.686 ± 0.141 > 0.516 ± 0.147
Sensitivity 0.497 > 0.333
Positive Predictive Value 0.787 > 0.322
Total TP 354 > 237
Total TN 105375 > 105089
Total FP 112 < 517
Total FP CONTRA 7 < 58
Total FP INCONS 89 < 441
Total FP COMP 16 < 18
Total FN 358 < 475
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidHomfold-LAST 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and NanoFolder).

  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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and NanoFolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidHomfold-LAST 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 354
Total TN 105375
Total FP 112
Total FP CONTRA 7
Total FP INCONS 89
Total FP COMP 16
Total FN 358
Total Scores
MCC 0.623
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.686 ± 0.141
Sensitivity 0.497
Positive Predictive Value 0.787
Nr of predictions 23

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ 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 1529 11 0 11 0 20
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 1 0 0 1 2
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 6101 4 0 4 0 39
2LQZ_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 341 1 1 0 0 2
2LWK_A - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 485 1 0 1 0 3
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J2L_3 0.73 0.62 0.87 33 7837 7 0 5 2 20
3SN2_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 10 396 0 0 0 0 2
3U4M_B - 0.58 0.43 0.80 16 3140 4 0 4 0 21
3UZL_B 0.72 0.54 0.95 20 3549 1 0 1 0 17
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.85 0.73 1.00 29 4724 1 0 0 1 11
3ZEX_D 0.75 0.65 0.86 32 6984 5 0 5 0 17
3ZEX_G - 0.75 0.61 0.92 45 16422 7 0 4 3 29
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21914 33 1 30 2 77
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.18 5 11753 29 5 18 6 28
4A1C_3 0.68 0.56 0.83 30 7104 6 0 6 0 24
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.71 0.50 1.00 21 4350 1 0 0 1 21
4ENC_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1315 0 0 0 0 8
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 319 0 0 0 0 0

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 237
Total TN 105089
Total FP 517
Total FP CONTRA 58
Total FP INCONS 441
Total FP COMP 18
Total FN 475
Total Scores
MCC 0.323
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.516 ± 0.147
Sensitivity 0.333
Positive Predictive Value 0.322
Nr of predictions 23

^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
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
2LWK_A - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 485 2 0 1 1 3
3J16_L 0.36 0.37 0.37 11 2745 19 3 16 0 19
3J20_1 0.41 0.48 0.37 11 2896 19 5 14 0 12
3J2L_3 0.11 0.11 0.12 6 7824 46 3 42 1 47
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
3UZL_B 0.36 0.35 0.38 13 3536 21 3 18 0 24
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.17 0.18 0.18 7 4713 34 1 32 1 33
3ZEX_D 0.26 0.27 0.27 13 6972 36 1 35 0 36
3ZEX_G - 0.05 0.05 0.05 4 16393 76 5 69 2 70
3ZEX_E - 0.03 0.04 0.03 3 21859 85 9 74 2 74
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11728 61 12 41 8 33
4A1C_3 0.48 0.46 0.51 25 7091 24 2 22 0 29
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
4HXH_A - 0.81 1.00 0.67 6 316 3 3 0 0 0

^top


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