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 Mastr(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Mastr(20) NanoFolder
MCC 0.452 > 0.314
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.315 ± 0.397 < 0.348 ± 0.340
Sensitivity 0.282 < 0.427
Positive Predictive Value 0.733 > 0.242
Total TP 33 < 50
Total TN 14875 > 14713
Total FP 13 < 205
Total FP CONTRA 4 < 65
Total FP INCONS 8 < 92
Total FP COMP 1 < 48
Total FN 84 > 67
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Mastr(20) 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 Mastr(20) 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 Mastr(20) and NanoFolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Mastr(20) 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 Mastr(20) and NanoFolder).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 33
Total TN 14875
Total FP 13
Total FP CONTRA 4
Total FP INCONS 8
Total FP COMP 1
Total FN 84
Total Scores
MCC 0.452
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.315 ± 0.397
Sensitivity 0.282
Positive Predictive Value 0.733
Nr of predictions 6

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J3D_C 0.90 0.95 0.86 18 947 3 3 0 0 1
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2742 0 0 0 0 15
3J3F_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4761 0 0 0 0 19
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4516 0 0 0 0 20
4AOB_A 0.42 0.34 0.53 10 1418 10 1 8 1 19
4ENC_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 5 491 0 0 0 0 10

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 50
Total TN 14713
Total FP 205
Total FP CONTRA 65
Total FP INCONS 92
Total FP COMP 48
Total FN 67
Total Scores
MCC 0.314
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.348 ± 0.340
Sensitivity 0.427
Positive Predictive Value 0.242
Nr of predictions 6

^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
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
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

^top


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