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 RNAalifold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAalifold(seed) RNASLOpt
MCC 0.631 > 0.527
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.569 ± 0.171 > 0.531 ± 0.187
Sensitivity 0.447 < 0.520
Positive Predictive Value 0.899 > 0.544
Total TP 134 < 156
Total TN 27976 > 27838
Total FP 25 < 186
Total FP CONTRA 2 < 51
Total FP INCONS 13 < 80
Total FP COMP 10 < 55
Total FN 166 > 144
P-value 1.82627677697e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 134
Total TN 27976
Total FP 25
Total FP CONTRA 2
Total FP INCONS 13
Total FP COMP 10
Total FN 166
Total Scores
MCC 0.631
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.569 ± 0.171
Sensitivity 0.447
Positive Predictive Value 0.899
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAalifold(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 0 516 12 0 12 0 18
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2742 0 0 0 0 15
3J3F_8 0.61 0.37 1.00 7 4754 2 0 0 2 12
3W1K_J 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 1659 0 0 0 0 12
3W3S_B 0.71 0.52 1.00 17 1972 2 0 0 2 16
3ZEX_C 0.49 0.24 1.00 7 5367 2 0 0 2 22
4A1C_2 0.50 0.25 1.00 5 4511 2 0 0 2 15
4AOB_A 0.85 0.72 1.00 21 1416 2 0 0 2 8
4ENB_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 6 466 0 0 0 0 9
4ENC_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 6 490 0 0 0 0 9
4FRG_B 0.84 0.71 1.00 17 1185 0 0 0 0 7
4FRN_A 0.78 0.68 0.90 19 1827 2 1 1 0 9
4JF2_A 0.61 0.42 0.91 10 1071 1 1 0 0 14

^top



Performance of RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 156
Total TN 27838
Total FP 186
Total FP CONTRA 51
Total FP INCONS 80
Total FP COMP 55
Total FN 144
Total Scores
MCC 0.527
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.531 ± 0.187
Sensitivity 0.520
Positive Predictive Value 0.544
Nr of predictions 13

^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
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.