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 RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric TurboFold(seed) RNAfold
MCC 0.544 > 0.525
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.553 ± 0.185 < 0.555 ± 0.164
Sensitivity 0.439 < 0.456
Positive Predictive Value 0.679 > 0.612
Total TP 163 < 169
Total TN 53657 > 53621
Total FP 90 < 133
Total FP CONTRA 11 < 14
Total FP INCONS 66 < 93
Total FP COMP 13 < 26
Total FN 208 > 202
P-value 8.89857672583e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  2. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(seed) and RNAfold. 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 RNAfold).

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

  4. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(seed) and RNAfold. 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 RNAfold).

^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 163
Total TN 53657
Total FP 90
Total FP CONTRA 11
Total FP INCONS 66
Total FP COMP 13
Total FN 208
Total Scores
MCC 0.544
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.553 ± 0.185
Sensitivity 0.439
Positive Predictive Value 0.679
Nr of predictions 11

^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
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
4AOB_A 0.56 0.40 0.77 17 4349 6 1 4 1 25
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

^top



Performance of RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 169
Total TN 53621
Total FP 133
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 93
Total FP COMP 26
Total FN 202
Total Scores
MCC 0.525
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.555 ± 0.164
Sensitivity 0.456
Positive Predictive Value 0.612
Nr of predictions 11

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAfold [ 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 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 5 0 5 0 9
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.64 0.52 0.79 22 3888 6 1 5 0 20
3ZEX_C 0.24 0.21 0.28 11 14157 42 1 27 14 41
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.82 32 7101 7 1 6 0 22
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 0.70 0.58 0.85 11 1262 2 1 1 0 8
4ENC_A 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1314 7 1 6 0 14
4FRN_A 0.52 0.44 0.62 16 5125 10 2 8 0 20

^top


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