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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for CentroidHomfold‑LAST & NanoFolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CentroidHomfold‑LAST NanoFolder
MCC 0.604 > 0.396
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.544 ± 0.246 > 0.427 ± 0.170
Sensitivity 0.572 > 0.502
Positive Predictive Value 0.647 > 0.326
Total TP 139 > 122
Total TN 20746 > 20587
Total FP 110 < 305
Total FP CONTRA 26 < 92
Total FP INCONS 50 < 160
Total FP COMP 34 < 53
Total FN 104 < 121
P-value 1.29018360962e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidHomfold-LAST and NanoFolder. 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and NanoFolder).

  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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and NanoFolder).

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

^top





Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 139
Total TN 20746
Total FP 110
Total FP CONTRA 26
Total FP INCONS 50
Total FP COMP 34
Total FN 104
Total Scores
MCC 0.604
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.544 ± 0.246
Sensitivity 0.572
Positive Predictive Value 0.647
Nr of predictions 12

^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
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 517 11 0 11 0 18
2M58_A - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 539 5 0 5 0 12
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
3U4M_B - 0.78 0.73 0.84 16 1257 4 0 3 1 6
3W3S_B 0.94 0.88 1.00 29 1960 1 0 0 1 4
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
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 0 0 0 0 4
4JF2_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 19 1063 0 0 0 0 5
4JRC_A - 0.87 0.76 1.00 13 609 0 0 0 0 4

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 122
Total TN 20587
Total FP 305
Total FP CONTRA 92
Total FP INCONS 160
Total FP COMP 53
Total FN 121
Total Scores
MCC 0.396
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.427 ± 0.170
Sensitivity 0.502
Positive Predictive Value 0.326
Nr of predictions 12

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.54 0.61 0.50 11 506 11 1 10 0 7
2M58_A - 0.45 0.58 0.37 7 525 13 6 6 1 5
3J3D_C 0.76 0.95 0.62 18 939 11 9 2 0 1
3J3E_8 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2707 47 11 24 12 15
3J3F_8 0.30 0.47 0.19 9 4714 57 21 17 19 10
3U4M_B - 0.77 0.91 0.67 20 1246 12 6 4 2 2
3W3S_B 0.18 0.21 0.18 7 1949 34 2 31 1 26
4A1C_2 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4469 61 18 29 14 20
4AOB_A 0.39 0.41 0.39 12 1406 20 4 15 1 17
4ENC_A 0.66 0.73 0.61 11 478 9 2 5 2 4
4JF2_A 0.55 0.67 0.47 16 1048 19 9 9 1 8
4JRC_A - 0.56 0.65 0.50 11 600 11 3 8 0 6

^top


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