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 TurboFold(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric CentroidAlifold(20) TurboFold(20)
MCC 0.712 > 0.636
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.661 ± 0.186 > 0.647 ± 0.154
Sensitivity 0.598 < 0.629
Positive Predictive Value 0.852 > 0.649
Total TP 155 < 163
Total TN 25404 > 25335
Total FP 37 < 132
Total FP CONTRA 12 < 32
Total FP INCONS 15 < 56
Total FP COMP 10 < 44
Total FN 104 > 96
P-value 2.04409141234e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidAlifold(20) and TurboFold(20). 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 TurboFold(20)).

  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 TurboFold(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidAlifold(20) and TurboFold(20). 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 TurboFold(20)).

^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 155
Total TN 25404
Total FP 37
Total FP CONTRA 12
Total FP INCONS 15
Total FP COMP 10
Total FN 104
Total Scores
MCC 0.712
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.661 ± 0.186
Sensitivity 0.598
Positive Predictive Value 0.852
Nr of predictions 12

^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
3ZEX_C 0.44 0.31 0.64 9 5360 7 1 4 2 20
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 TurboFold(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 163
Total TN 25335
Total FP 132
Total FP CONTRA 32
Total FP INCONS 56
Total FP COMP 44
Total FN 96
Total Scores
MCC 0.636
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.647 ± 0.154
Sensitivity 0.629
Positive Predictive Value 0.649
Nr of predictions 12

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 1 5 1 5
3J3D_C 0.90 0.95 0.86 18 947 3 3 0 0 1
3J3E_8 0.27 0.33 0.23 5 2720 28 6 11 11 10
3J3F_8 0.42 0.53 0.34 10 4732 37 9 10 18 9
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.71 0.69 0.74 20 1506 7 2 5 0 9
3ZEX_C 0.49 0.45 0.54 13 5350 15 2 9 4 16
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.21 5 4492 28 6 13 9 15
4AOB_A 0.67 0.59 0.77 17 1415 6 2 3 1 12
4ENB_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 9 463 0 0 0 0 6
4ENC_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 9 486 1 1 0 0 6
4FRG_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 21 1181 0 0 0 0 3

^top


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