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 PPfold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Vsfold4 - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for PPfold(20) & Vsfold4 [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric PPfold(20) Vsfold4
MCC 0.723 > 0.535
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.704 ± 0.103 > 0.583 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.581 > 0.442
Positive Predictive Value 0.905 > 0.653
Total TP 277 > 211
Total TN 59865 > 59848
Total FP 37 < 131
Total FP CONTRA 0 < 6
Total FP INCONS 29 < 106
Total FP COMP 8 < 19
Total FN 200 < 266
P-value 2.8150742666e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of PPfold(20) and Vsfold4. 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 PPfold(20) and Vsfold4).

  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 PPfold(20) and Vsfold4).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PPfold(20) and Vsfold4. 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 PPfold(20) and Vsfold4).

^top





Performance of PPfold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for PPfold(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 277
Total TN 59865
Total FP 37
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 29
Total FP COMP 8
Total FN 200
Total Scores
MCC 0.723
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.704 ± 0.103
Sensitivity 0.581
Positive Predictive Value 0.905
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for PPfold(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.63 0.45 0.90 9 980 1 0 1 0 11
3AMU_B 0.86 0.74 1.00 20 2983 1 0 0 1 7
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J20_0 0.84 0.70 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 9
3J2L_3 0.78 0.62 0.97 33 7841 3 0 1 2 20
3RKF_A 0.73 0.56 0.95 19 2191 1 0 1 0 15
3SD1_A 0.68 0.52 0.88 22 3891 3 0 3 0 20
3ZEX_D 0.81 0.71 0.92 35 6983 3 0 3 0 14
4A1C_3 0.77 0.63 0.94 34 7104 2 0 2 0 20
4A1C_2 0.21 0.15 0.29 5 11764 16 0 12 4 28
4AOB_A 0.74 0.60 0.93 25 4344 3 0 2 1 17
4ENB_A 0.56 0.37 0.88 7 1267 1 0 1 0 12
4ENC_A 0.58 0.42 0.80 8 1316 2 0 2 0 11
4FRG_B 0.73 0.56 0.95 18 3467 1 0 1 0 14

^top



Performance of Vsfold4 - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Vsfold4

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 211
Total TN 59848
Total FP 131
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 106
Total FP COMP 19
Total FN 266
Total Scores
MCC 0.535
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.583 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.442
Positive Predictive Value 0.653
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for Vsfold4 [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.92 0.85 1.00 17 973 0 0 0 0 3
3AMU_B 0.64 0.56 0.75 15 2983 7 0 5 2 12
3J20_1 0.71 0.70 0.73 16 2904 6 0 6 0 7
3J20_0 0.84 0.70 1.00 21 2829 1 0 0 1 9
3J2L_3 0.57 0.45 0.73 24 7842 12 1 8 3 29
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.19 0.17 0.24 7 3887 22 1 21 0 35
3ZEX_D 0.55 0.45 0.69 22 6989 10 0 10 0 27
4A1C_3 0.26 0.22 0.32 12 7103 25 2 23 0 42
4A1C_2 0.28 0.24 0.33 8 11757 28 0 16 12 25
4AOB_A 0.42 0.33 0.54 14 4345 13 1 11 1 28
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.69 0.47 1.00 9 1317 0 0 0 0 10
4FRG_B 0.56 0.47 0.68 15 3464 7 1 6 0 17

^top


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