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 McQFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric McQFold RDfolder
MCC 0.714 > 0.569
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.697 ± 0.132 > 0.577 ± 0.138
Sensitivity 0.692 > 0.510
Positive Predictive Value 0.749 > 0.653
Total TP 353 > 260
Total TN 22835 < 22908
Total FP 124 < 141
Total FP CONTRA 30 > 28
Total FP INCONS 88 < 110
Total FP COMP 6 > 3
Total FN 157 < 250
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of McQFold and RDfolder. 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 McQFold and RDfolder).

  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 McQFold and RDfolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for McQFold and RDfolder. 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 McQFold and RDfolder).

^top





Performance of McQFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 353
Total TN 22835
Total FP 124
Total FP CONTRA 30
Total FP INCONS 88
Total FP COMP 6
Total FN 157
Total Scores
MCC 0.714
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.697 ± 0.132
Sensitivity 0.692
Positive Predictive Value 0.749
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KFC_A - 0.79 0.63 1.00 5 231 0 0 0 0 3
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 1 4 0 7
2RP0_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 111 0 0 0 0 2
2ZZN_D 0.93 0.95 0.91 21 961 2 2 0 0 1
3A2K_C 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1087 0 0 0 0 1
3A3A_A 0.97 0.93 1.00 28 1472 0 0 0 0 2
3ADB_C - 0.98 0.97 1.00 32 1787 1 0 0 1 1
3GCA_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 153 0 0 0 0 2
3GX2_A 0.56 0.57 0.57 16 1421 13 4 8 1 12
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IWN_A 0.21 0.21 0.24 6 1447 19 2 17 0 22
3J0L_a - 0.21 0.18 0.29 2 404 6 3 2 1 9
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 3 3 1 5
3J3D_C 0.90 0.95 0.86 18 947 3 3 0 0 1
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1091 20 4 16 0 20
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.42 0.42 0.44 8 717 10 2 8 0 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.82 0.83 0.83 24 1504 5 1 4 0 5
3W3S_B 0.49 0.45 0.54 15 1961 14 1 12 1 18
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ATO_G - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 215 5 0 5 0 7
4ENB_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 457 0 0 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0
4JRC_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 16 606 0 0 0 0 1

^top



Performance of RDfolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RDfolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 260
Total TN 22908
Total FP 141
Total FP CONTRA 28
Total FP INCONS 110
Total FP COMP 3
Total FN 250
Total Scores
MCC 0.569
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.577 ± 0.138
Sensitivity 0.510
Positive Predictive Value 0.653
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KFC_A - 0.79 0.63 1.00 5 231 0 0 0 0 3
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 514 14 3 11 0 18
2RP0_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 111 0 0 0 0 2
2ZZN_D 0.93 0.95 0.91 21 961 2 2 0 0 1
3A2K_C 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1087 0 0 0 0 1
3A3A_A 0.59 0.50 0.71 15 1479 6 0 6 0 15
3ADB_C - 0.48 0.45 0.54 15 1791 13 1 12 0 18
3GCA_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 153 0 0 0 0 2
3GX2_A 0.60 0.57 0.64 16 1424 10 2 7 1 12
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IWN_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1462 10 1 9 0 28
3J0L_a - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 407 4 3 1 0 11
3J20_0 0.82 0.76 0.89 16 1201 3 1 1 1 5
3J3D_C 0.76 0.79 0.75 15 948 5 3 2 0 4
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1091 20 4 16 0 20
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.43 0.42 0.47 8 718 9 2 7 0 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.35 0.24 0.54 7 1520 6 1 5 0 22
3W3S_B 0.29 0.27 0.33 9 1962 18 2 16 0 24
4AOB_A 0.42 0.38 0.48 11 1414 13 3 9 1 18
4ATO_G - 0.75 0.57 1.00 4 216 0 0 0 0 3
4ENB_A 0.48 0.40 0.60 6 462 4 0 4 0 9
4ENC_A 0.48 0.40 0.60 6 486 4 0 4 0 9
4JRC_A - 0.94 0.88 1.00 15 607 0 0 0 0 2

^top


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