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 TurboFold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for TurboFold(seed) & MCFold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric TurboFold(seed) MCFold
MCC 0.515 > 0.383
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.528 ± 0.172 > 0.415 ± 0.171
Sensitivity 0.427 > 0.396
Positive Predictive Value 0.627 > 0.377
Total TP 183 > 170
Total TN 71833 > 71674
Total FP 144 < 332
Total FP CONTRA 14 < 32
Total FP INCONS 95 < 249
Total FP COMP 35 < 51
Total FN 246 < 259
P-value 2.30549897711e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(seed) and MCFold. 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 TurboFold(seed) and MCFold).

  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 TurboFold(seed) and MCFold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(seed) and MCFold. 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 TurboFold(seed) and MCFold).

^top





Performance of TurboFold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for TurboFold(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 183
Total TN 71833
Total FP 144
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 95
Total FP COMP 35
Total FN 246
Total Scores
MCC 0.515
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.528 ± 0.172
Sensitivity 0.427
Positive Predictive Value 0.627
Nr of predictions 13

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.92 0.90 0.95 18 971 1 0 1 0 2
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
3J3E_8 0.17 0.15 0.21 5 7479 28 2 17 9 28
3J3F_8 0.39 0.36 0.42 13 12215 32 2 16 14 23
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.59 0.48 0.74 20 3889 7 1 6 0 22
3ZEX_C 0.39 0.27 0.56 14 14171 14 2 9 3 38
4A1C_3 0.69 0.57 0.84 31 7103 6 0 6 0 23
4A1C_2 0.15 0.15 0.15 5 11748 37 3 25 9 28
4ENB_A 0.69 0.47 1.00 9 1266 0 0 0 0 10
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10
4FRN_A 0.69 0.56 0.87 20 5128 3 1 2 0 16
4JF2_A 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 12

^top



Performance of MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 170
Total TN 71674
Total FP 332
Total FP CONTRA 32
Total FP INCONS 249
Total FP COMP 51
Total FN 259
Total Scores
MCC 0.383
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.415 ± 0.171
Sensitivity 0.396
Positive Predictive Value 0.377
Nr of predictions 13

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 971 0 0 0 0 1
2LC8_A 0.41 0.45 0.39 9 1517 16 0 14 2 11
3J3E_8 0.12 0.12 0.12 4 7470 46 3 26 17 29
3J3F_8 0.13 0.17 0.11 6 12191 61 9 40 12 30
3RKF_A 0.70 0.65 0.76 22 2182 7 1 6 0 12
3SD1_A 0.33 0.33 0.35 14 3876 26 0 26 0 28
3ZEX_C 0.24 0.21 0.28 11 14156 29 3 26 0 41
4A1C_3 0.68 0.67 0.71 36 7089 17 1 14 2 18
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.11 5 11735 56 10 31 15 28
4ENB_A 0.61 0.63 0.60 12 1255 8 2 6 0 7
4ENC_A 0.28 0.32 0.27 6 1304 17 2 14 1 13
4FRN_A 0.12 0.14 0.12 5 5110 38 1 35 2 31
4JF2_A 0.66 0.68 0.66 21 2818 11 0 11 0 10

^top


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