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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) & CentroidHomfold‑LAST [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric PETfold_pre2.0(seed) CentroidHomfold‑LAST
MCC 0.729 > 0.574
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.702 ± 0.065 > 0.567 ± 0.112
Sensitivity 0.606 > 0.489
Positive Predictive Value 0.882 > 0.680
Total TP 502 > 405
Total TN 117069 > 117042
Total FP 93 < 218
Total FP CONTRA 6 < 21
Total FP INCONS 61 < 170
Total FP COMP 26 < 27
Total FN 327 < 424
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and CentroidHomfold-LAST. 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  2. Comparison of performance of PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and CentroidHomfold-LAST. 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  3. 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  4. 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  5. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and CentroidHomfold-LAST. 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  6. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and CentroidHomfold-LAST. 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 PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

^top





Performance of PETfold_pre2.0(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for PETfold_pre2.0(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 502
Total TN 117069
Total FP 93
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 61
Total FP COMP 26
Total FN 327
Total Scores
MCC 0.729
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.702 ± 0.065
Sensitivity 0.606
Positive Predictive Value 0.882
Nr of predictions 23

^top



2. Individual counts for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.40 0.30 0.55 6 1529 5 0 5 0 14
3J16_L 0.82 0.70 0.95 21 2753 1 0 1 0 9
3J20_0 0.84 0.70 1.00 21 2829 1 0 0 1 9
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 1 0 0 1 2
3J2L_3 0.77 0.62 0.94 33 7840 4 0 2 2 20
3J3D_C 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 2754 2 0 1 1 8
3J3E_7 0.78 0.67 0.92 36 7101 3 0 3 0 18
3J3E_8 0.43 0.30 0.63 10 7487 8 0 6 2 23
3J3F_7 0.85 0.74 0.97 37 7222 2 0 1 1 13
3J3F_8 0.63 0.53 0.76 19 12221 10 0 6 4 17
3J3V_B 0.76 0.61 0.95 35 6984 3 0 2 1 22
3UZL_B 0.72 0.54 0.95 20 3549 2 1 0 1 17
3W3S_B 0.78 0.65 0.93 26 4725 4 0 2 2 14
3ZEX_D 0.82 0.73 0.92 36 6982 3 0 3 0 13
3ZND_W 0.47 0.43 0.53 10 2984 12 0 9 3 13
4A1C_2 0.57 0.45 0.71 15 11760 12 0 6 6 18
4A1C_3 0.83 0.70 0.97 38 7101 1 0 1 0 16
4AOB_A 0.72 0.57 0.92 24 4345 3 0 2 1 18
4ENB_A 0.50 0.42 0.62 8 1262 5 1 4 0 11
4ENC_A 0.50 0.42 0.62 8 1313 5 1 4 0 11
4FRG_B 0.74 0.63 0.87 20 3463 3 1 2 0 12
4FRN_A 0.73 0.61 0.88 22 5126 3 2 1 0 14
4JF2_A 0.72 0.52 1.00 16 2834 0 0 0 0 15

^top



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

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 405
Total TN 117042
Total FP 218
Total FP CONTRA 21
Total FP INCONS 170
Total FP COMP 27
Total FN 424
Total Scores
MCC 0.574
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.567 ± 0.112
Sensitivity 0.489
Positive Predictive Value 0.680
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
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3J20_0 0.35 0.37 0.34 11 2818 22 3 18 1 19
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
3J3D_C 0.68 0.61 0.77 17 2753 5 0 5 0 11
3J3E_7 0.64 0.54 0.76 29 7102 9 0 9 0 25
3J3E_8 0.05 0.03 0.08 1 7490 16 1 11 4 32
3J3F_7 0.65 0.58 0.74 29 7221 10 1 9 0 21
3J3F_8 0.33 0.33 0.33 12 12210 33 4 20 9 24
3J3V_B 0.51 0.37 0.72 21 6992 8 1 7 0 36
3UZL_B 0.72 0.54 0.95 20 3549 1 0 1 0 17
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
3ZND_W 0.47 0.39 0.56 9 2987 10 0 7 3 14
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
4AOB_A 0.71 0.50 1.00 21 4350 1 0 0 1 21
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1315 0 0 0 0 8
4FRG_B 0.41 0.41 0.43 13 3456 17 3 14 0 19
4FRN_A 0.36 0.39 0.34 14 5110 27 3 24 0 22
4JF2_A 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 12

^top


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