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 CentroidAlifold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for CentroidAlifold(20) & CentroidHomfold‑LAST [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CentroidAlifold(20) CentroidHomfold‑LAST
MCC 0.740 > 0.572
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.681 ± 0.201 > 0.584 ± 0.193
Sensitivity 0.635 > 0.578
Positive Predictive Value 0.869 > 0.576
Total TP 146 > 133
Total TN 20044 > 19981
Total FP 30 < 131
Total FP CONTRA 11 < 40
Total FP INCONS 11 < 58
Total FP COMP 8 < 33
Total FN 84 < 97
P-value 1.19192530585e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidAlifold(20) 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 CentroidAlifold(20) and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  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 CentroidAlifold(20) and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidAlifold(20) 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 CentroidAlifold(20) and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 146
Total TN 20044
Total FP 30
Total FP CONTRA 11
Total FP INCONS 11
Total FP COMP 8
Total FN 84
Total Scores
MCC 0.740
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.681 ± 0.201
Sensitivity 0.635
Positive Predictive Value 0.869
Nr of predictions 11

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J20_0 0.95 0.95 0.95 20 1198 2 1 0 1 1
3J3D_C 0.90 0.95 0.86 18 947 3 3 0 0 1
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2738 4 1 3 0 15
3J3F_8 0.44 0.37 0.54 7 4748 8 3 3 2 12
3RKF_A 0.86 0.75 1.00 18 848 0 0 0 0 6
3SD1_A 0.85 0.76 0.96 22 1510 1 0 1 0 7
4A1C_2 0.33 0.25 0.45 5 4505 8 3 3 2 15
4AOB_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 23 1414 2 0 0 2 6
4ENB_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 9 463 0 0 0 0 6
4ENC_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 7 489 0 0 0 0 8
4FRG_B 0.81 0.71 0.94 17 1184 2 0 1 1 7

^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 133
Total TN 19981
Total FP 131
Total FP CONTRA 40
Total FP INCONS 58
Total FP COMP 33
Total FN 97
Total Scores
MCC 0.572
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.584 ± 0.193
Sensitivity 0.578
Positive Predictive Value 0.576
Nr of predictions 11

^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
3J20_0 0.41 0.52 0.34 11 1187 22 7 14 1 10
3J3D_C 0.73 0.79 0.68 15 946 7 3 4 0 4
3J3E_8 0.07 0.07 0.09 1 2731 16 4 6 6 14
3J3F_8 0.36 0.47 0.27 9 4728 36 11 13 12 10
3RKF_A 0.86 0.75 1.00 18 848 0 0 0 0 6
3SD1_A 0.77 0.66 0.90 19 1512 2 1 1 0 10
4A1C_2 0.24 0.25 0.24 5 4495 29 8 8 13 15
4AOB_A 0.85 0.72 1.00 21 1416 1 0 0 1 8
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 0 0 0 0 4
4FRG_B 0.43 0.50 0.40 12 1172 18 6 12 0 12

^top


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