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 RNAwolf - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric McQFold RNAwolf
MCC 0.463 > 0.406
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.613 ± 0.143 > 0.432 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.478 > 0.415
Positive Predictive Value 0.449 > 0.399
Total TP 583 > 506
Total TN 878207 < 878235
Total FP 821 < 895
Total FP CONTRA 177 < 199
Total FP INCONS 537 < 564
Total FP COMP 107 < 132
Total FN 637 < 714
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of McQFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 583
Total TN 878207
Total FP 821
Total FP CONTRA 177
Total FP INCONS 537
Total FP COMP 107
Total FN 637
Total Scores
MCC 0.463
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.613 ± 0.143
Sensitivity 0.478
Positive Predictive Value 0.449
Nr of predictions 24

^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
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 1 4 0 7
2M58_A - 0.60 0.58 0.64 7 533 5 1 3 1 5
3J0L_a - 0.21 0.18 0.29 2 404 6 3 2 1 9
3J20_2 0.55 0.56 0.55 231 421948 234 41 148 45 181
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
3J3E_8 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2718 36 8 16 12 15
3J3F_8 0.31 0.42 0.23 8 4726 41 12 15 14 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
3U4M_B - 0.95 0.91 1.00 20 1256 2 0 0 2 2
3W1K_J 0.86 0.77 0.96 24 1653 1 1 0 0 7
3W3S_B 0.49 0.45 0.54 15 1961 14 1 12 1 18
3ZEX_B - 0.12 0.14 0.12 47 420944 379 78 283 18 299
3ZEX_C 0.33 0.34 0.32 10 5343 25 4 17 4 19
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 33 11 16 6 15
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
4FRG_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 21 1181 0 0 0 0 3
4FRN_A 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 1827 1 1 0 0 8
4JF2_A 0.92 1.00 0.86 24 1054 5 4 0 1 0
4JRC_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 16 606 0 0 0 0 1

^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.