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 Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric PETfold_pre2.0(seed) Fold
MCC 0.715 > 0.486
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.699 ± 0.059 > 0.487 ± 0.110
Sensitivity 0.602 > 0.430
Positive Predictive Value 0.850 > 0.551
Total TP 935 > 667
Total TN 1251685 > 1251574
Total FP 203 < 601
Total FP CONTRA 18 < 49
Total FP INCONS 147 < 495
Total FP COMP 38 < 57
Total FN 617 < 885
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Fold. 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 Fold).

  2. Comparison of performance of PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Fold. 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 Fold).

  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 Fold).

  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 Fold).

  5. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Fold. 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 Fold).

  6. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PETfold_pre2.0(seed) and Fold. 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 Fold).

^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 935
Total TN 1251685
Total FP 203
Total FP CONTRA 18
Total FP INCONS 147
Total FP COMP 38
Total FN 617
Total Scores
MCC 0.715
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.699 ± 0.059
Sensitivity 0.602
Positive Predictive Value 0.850
Nr of predictions 26

^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_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 1 0 0 1 2
3J20_2 0.71 0.61 0.81 388 1116287 97 10 80 7 245
3J20_0 0.84 0.70 1.00 21 2829 1 0 0 1 9
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_8 0.43 0.30 0.63 10 7487 8 0 6 2 23
3J3E_7 0.78 0.67 0.92 36 7101 3 0 3 0 18
3J3F_8 0.63 0.53 0.76 19 12221 10 0 6 4 17
3J3F_7 0.85 0.74 0.97 37 7222 2 0 1 1 13
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
3W1K_J 0.80 0.68 0.93 26 4158 3 1 1 1 12
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
3ZEX_C 0.53 0.37 0.76 19 14171 10 1 5 4 33
3ZND_W 0.47 0.43 0.53 10 2984 12 0 9 3 13
4A1C_3 0.83 0.70 0.97 38 7101 1 0 1 0 16
4A1C_2 0.57 0.45 0.71 15 11760 12 0 6 6 18
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 Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 667
Total TN 1251574
Total FP 601
Total FP CONTRA 49
Total FP INCONS 495
Total FP COMP 57
Total FN 885
Total Scores
MCC 0.486
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.487 ± 0.110
Sensitivity 0.430
Positive Predictive Value 0.551
Nr of predictions 26

^top



2. Individual counts for Fold [ 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
3J16_L 0.63 0.53 0.76 16 2754 5 0 5 0 14
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J20_2 0.45 0.40 0.51 256 1116260 253 15 234 4 377
3J20_0 0.45 0.40 0.52 12 2827 12 0 11 1 18
3J2L_3 0.62 0.53 0.74 28 7837 12 0 10 2 25
3J3D_C 0.47 0.43 0.52 12 2752 11 1 10 0 16
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7478 34 2 23 9 33
3J3E_7 0.46 0.37 0.57 20 7105 15 1 14 0 34
3J3F_8 0.28 0.28 0.29 10 12211 39 5 20 14 26
3J3F_7 0.79 0.68 0.92 34 7223 4 0 3 1 16
3J3V_B 0.51 0.42 0.63 24 6983 14 1 13 0 33
3UZL_B 0.77 0.62 0.96 23 3546 1 0 1 0 14
3W1K_J 0.87 0.79 0.97 30 4155 1 1 0 0 8
3W3S_B 0.85 0.75 0.97 30 4722 2 0 1 1 10
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.67 0.87 33 6983 5 1 4 0 16
3ZEX_C 0.22 0.21 0.24 11 14151 45 4 30 11 41
3ZND_W 0.20 0.22 0.19 5 2977 23 1 20 2 18
4A1C_3 0.68 0.57 0.82 31 7102 7 1 6 0 23
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11744 43 5 27 11 28
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ENB_A 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1263 7 1 6 0 14
4ENC_A 0.31 0.26 0.38 5 1313 8 1 7 0 14
4FRG_B 0.24 0.22 0.27 7 3460 19 3 16 0 25
4FRN_A 0.41 0.36 0.46 13 5123 15 2 13 0 23
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.