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 CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for CentroidFold & RNAwolf [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CentroidFold RNAwolf
MCC 0.564 > 0.406
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.596 ± 0.116 > 0.432 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.537 > 0.415
Positive Predictive Value 0.593 > 0.399
Total TP 655 > 506
Total TN 878399 > 878235
Total FP 563 < 895
Total FP CONTRA 109 < 199
Total FP INCONS 341 < 564
Total FP COMP 113 < 132
Total FN 565 < 714
P-value 5.02343278931e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidFold and RNAwolf. 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 CentroidFold and RNAwolf).

  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 CentroidFold and RNAwolf).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidFold and RNAwolf. 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 CentroidFold and RNAwolf).

^top





Performance of CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 655
Total TN 878399
Total FP 563
Total FP CONTRA 109
Total FP INCONS 341
Total FP COMP 113
Total FN 565
Total Scores
MCC 0.564
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.596 ± 0.116
Sensitivity 0.537
Positive Predictive Value 0.593
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.51 0.39 0.70 7 518 3 1 2 0 11
2M58_A - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 538 6 0 6 0 12
3J0L_a - 0.41 0.36 0.50 4 403 5 3 1 1 7
3J20_2 0.70 0.69 0.70 286 421962 177 23 97 57 126
3J20_0 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1196 12 3 8 1 9
3J3D_C 0.73 0.79 0.68 15 946 7 3 4 0 4
3J3E_8 0.12 0.13 0.13 2 2726 22 4 10 8 13
3J3F_8 0.36 0.47 0.28 9 4729 37 12 11 14 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.70 0.69 0.71 20 1505 8 4 4 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1256 5 0 3 2 5
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.95 0.91 1.00 30 1959 1 0 0 1 3
3ZEX_B - 0.27 0.25 0.31 85 421074 210 38 155 17 261
3ZEX_C 0.48 0.34 0.67 10 5359 6 1 4 1 19
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.19 5 4490 29 9 12 8 15
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ATO_G - 0.61 0.57 0.67 4 214 2 0 2 0 3
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 1 0 0 1 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 1 0 0 1 4
4FRG_B 0.75 0.71 0.81 17 1181 4 3 1 0 7
4FRN_A 0.80 0.71 0.91 20 1826 2 1 1 0 8
4JF2_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 19 1063 0 0 0 0 5
4JRC_A - 0.38 0.41 0.39 7 604 11 0 11 0 10

^top



Performance of RNAwolf - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAwolf

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 506
Total TN 878235
Total FP 895
Total FP CONTRA 199
Total FP INCONS 564
Total FP COMP 132
Total FN 714
Total Scores
MCC 0.406
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.432 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.415
Positive Predictive Value 0.399
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.52 0.50 0.56 9 512 7 0 7 0 9
2M58_A - 0.60 0.58 0.64 7 533 4 1 3 0 5
3J0L_a - 0.14 0.18 0.14 2 397 13 4 8 1 9
3J20_2 0.55 0.55 0.56 228 421959 243 27 154 62 184
3J20_0 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1196 12 2 9 1 9
3J3D_C 0.92 0.95 0.90 18 948 3 2 0 1 1
3J3E_8 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2719 37 6 17 14 15
3J3F_8 0.28 0.37 0.23 7 4730 39 9 15 15 12
3RKF_A 0.89 0.83 0.95 20 845 1 0 1 0 4
3SD1_A 0.58 0.59 0.59 17 1504 12 2 10 0 12
3U4M_B - 0.50 0.50 0.52 11 1255 12 1 9 2 11
3W1K_J 0.81 0.77 0.86 24 1650 5 0 4 1 7
3W3S_B 0.70 0.70 0.72 23 1957 10 0 9 1 10
3ZEX_B - 0.18 0.19 0.17 65 420964 343 98 225 20 281
3ZEX_C 0.08 0.10 0.07 3 5328 43 18 25 0 26
4A1C_2 0.12 0.15 0.10 3 4487 38 12 14 12 17
4AOB_A 0.26 0.24 0.30 7 1414 17 2 14 1 22
4ATO_G - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 213 7 4 3 0 7
4ENB_A 0.45 0.40 0.55 6 461 5 1 4 0 9
4ENC_A 0.34 0.33 0.38 5 483 9 0 8 1 10
4FRG_B 0.54 0.50 0.60 12 1182 8 3 5 0 12
4FRN_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1828 20 1 19 0 28
4JF2_A 0.72 0.67 0.80 16 1062 4 4 0 0 8
4JRC_A - 0.71 0.65 0.79 11 608 3 2 1 0 6

^top


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