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 MXScarna(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric MXScarna(seed) RNASLOpt
MCC 0.581 > 0.541
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.529 ± 0.146 < 0.546 ± 0.175
Sensitivity 0.520 < 0.536
Positive Predictive Value 0.657 > 0.557
Total TP 167 < 172
Total TN 29090 > 29035
Total FP 138 < 193
Total FP CONTRA 26 < 54
Total FP INCONS 61 < 83
Total FP COMP 51 < 56
Total FN 154 > 149
P-value 3.36290909588e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of MXScarna(seed) and RNASLOpt. 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 MXScarna(seed) and RNASLOpt).

  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 MXScarna(seed) and RNASLOpt).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for MXScarna(seed) and RNASLOpt. 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 MXScarna(seed) and RNASLOpt).

^top





Performance of MXScarna(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MXScarna(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 167
Total TN 29090
Total FP 138
Total FP CONTRA 26
Total FP INCONS 61
Total FP COMP 51
Total FN 154
Total Scores
MCC 0.581
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.529 ± 0.146
Sensitivity 0.520
Positive Predictive Value 0.657
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for MXScarna(seed) [ 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 0 518 12 0 10 2 18
3J20_0 0.90 0.86 0.95 18 1200 1 1 0 0 3
3J3E_8 0.23 0.20 0.27 3 2731 14 3 5 6 12
3J3F_8 0.48 0.47 0.50 9 4743 21 5 4 12 10
3W1K_J 0.92 0.90 0.93 28 1648 3 1 1 1 3
3W3S_B 0.74 0.70 0.79 23 1960 7 0 6 1 10
3ZEX_C 0.39 0.31 0.50 9 5356 21 3 6 12 20
4A1C_2 0.45 0.40 0.50 8 4500 20 4 4 12 12
4AOB_A 0.71 0.69 0.74 20 1410 10 2 5 3 9
4ENB_A 0.54 0.40 0.75 6 464 2 0 2 0 9
4ENC_A 0.48 0.40 0.60 6 486 4 1 3 0 9
4FRG_B 0.49 0.42 0.59 10 1185 8 2 5 1 14
4FRN_A 0.70 0.68 0.73 19 1822 7 3 4 0 9
4JF2_A 0.41 0.33 0.53 8 1067 8 1 6 1 16

^top



Performance of RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 172
Total TN 29035
Total FP 193
Total FP CONTRA 54
Total FP INCONS 83
Total FP COMP 56
Total FN 149
Total Scores
MCC 0.541
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.546 ± 0.175
Sensitivity 0.536
Positive Predictive Value 0.557
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.48 0.39 0.64 7 517 4 0 4 0 11
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 3 3 1 5
3J3E_8 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2724 30 6 12 12 15
3J3F_8 0.39 0.47 0.32 9 4733 38 10 9 19 10
3W1K_J 0.93 0.90 0.97 28 1649 1 1 0 0 3
3W3S_B 0.90 0.85 0.97 28 1960 2 0 1 1 5
3ZEX_C 0.32 0.34 0.31 10 5342 36 8 14 14 19
4A1C_2 0.30 0.40 0.24 8 4482 35 13 13 9 12
4AOB_A 0.31 0.28 0.38 8 1416 13 3 10 0 21
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 9 486 1 1 0 0 6
4FRG_B 0.60 0.58 0.64 14 1180 8 3 5 0 10
4FRN_A 0.19 0.18 0.22 5 1825 18 6 12 0 23
4JF2_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 19 1063 0 0 0 0 5

^top


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