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 MaxExpect - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric MaxExpect NanoFolder
MCC 0.587 > 0.339
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.660 ± 0.131 > 0.536 ± 0.139
Sensitivity 0.512 > 0.350
Positive Predictive Value 0.677 > 0.338
Total TP 378 > 258
Total TN 106291 > 106086
Total FP 206 < 523
Total FP CONTRA 14 < 60
Total FP INCONS 166 < 445
Total FP COMP 26 > 18
Total FN 360 < 480
P-value 5.02343278931e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for MaxExpect 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 MaxExpect and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of MaxExpect - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MaxExpect

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 378
Total TN 106291
Total FP 206
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 166
Total FP COMP 26
Total FN 360
Total Scores
MCC 0.587
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.660 ± 0.131
Sensitivity 0.512
Positive Predictive Value 0.677
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for MaxExpect [ 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 - 0.90 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 - 0.81 0.74 0.88 29 6072 6 0 4 2 10
2LQZ_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 341 1 1 0 0 2
2LWK_A - 0.88 0.85 0.92 11 484 1 0 1 0 2
3J16_L 0.29 0.23 0.37 7 2756 12 0 12 0 23
3J20_1 0.73 0.70 0.76 16 2905 5 0 5 0 7
3J2L_3 0.62 0.53 0.74 28 7837 12 0 10 2 25
3SN2_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 394 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.45 0.35 0.59 13 3138 9 1 8 0 24
3UZL_B 0.77 0.62 0.96 23 3546 1 0 1 0 14
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.88 0.78 1.00 31 4722 1 0 0 1 9
3ZEX_G - 0.77 0.66 0.91 49 16417 11 0 5 6 25
3ZEX_D 0.69 0.61 0.79 30 6983 8 1 7 0 19
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21893 54 2 50 2 77
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11746 41 4 26 11 28
4A1C_3 0.69 0.57 0.84 31 7103 6 0 6 0 23
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ATO_G - 0.38 0.30 0.50 3 522 3 0 3 0 7
4ENC_A 0.31 0.26 0.38 5 1313 8 1 7 0 14
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 258
Total TN 106086
Total FP 523
Total FP CONTRA 60
Total FP INCONS 445
Total FP COMP 18
Total FN 480
Total Scores
MCC 0.339
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.536 ± 0.139
Sensitivity 0.350
Positive Predictive Value 0.338
Nr of predictions 25

^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
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_G - 0.05 0.05 0.05 4 16393 76 5 69 2 70
3ZEX_D 0.26 0.27 0.27 13 6972 36 1 35 0 36
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
4ATO_G - 0.61 0.70 0.54 7 515 6 2 4 0 3
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.