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 RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) NanoFolder
MCC 0.547 > 0.314
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.552 ± 0.324 > 0.348 ± 0.340
Sensitivity 0.538 > 0.427
Positive Predictive Value 0.563 > 0.242
Total TP 63 > 50
Total TN 14808 > 14713
Total FP 78 < 205
Total FP CONTRA 17 < 65
Total FP INCONS 32 < 92
Total FP COMP 29 < 48
Total FN 54 < 67
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 63
Total TN 14808
Total FP 78
Total FP CONTRA 17
Total FP INCONS 32
Total FP COMP 29
Total FN 54
Total Scores
MCC 0.547
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.552 ± 0.324
Sensitivity 0.538
Positive Predictive Value 0.563
Nr of predictions 6

^top



2. Individual counts for RNASampler(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 0.19 0.20 0.19 3 2726 21 5 8 8 12
3J3F_8 0.43 0.47 0.39 9 4738 20 6 8 6 10
4A1C_2 0.24 0.25 0.24 5 4495 30 3 13 14 15
4AOB_A 0.70 0.59 0.85 17 1417 4 0 3 1 12
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 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 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.