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 RNAfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAfold RNAwolf
MCC 0.488 > 0.406
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.506 ± 0.098 > 0.432 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.516 > 0.415
Positive Predictive Value 0.463 > 0.399
Total TP 629 > 506
Total TN 878146 < 878235
Total FP 889 < 895
Total FP CONTRA 182 < 199
Total FP INCONS 547 < 564
Total FP COMP 160 > 132
Total FN 591 < 714
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of RNAfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 629
Total TN 878146
Total FP 889
Total FP CONTRA 182
Total FP INCONS 547
Total FP COMP 160
Total FN 591
Total Scores
MCC 0.488
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.506 ± 0.098
Sensitivity 0.516
Positive Predictive Value 0.463
Nr of predictions 24

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAfold [ 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 0 5 0 7
2M58_A - 0.40 0.42 0.42 5 532 7 1 6 0 7
3J0L_a - 0.18 0.18 0.22 2 402 8 3 4 1 9
3J20_2 0.56 0.58 0.54 238 421930 251 36 164 51 174
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 3 10 1 9
3J3D_C 0.33 0.37 0.32 7 946 15 3 12 0 12
3J3E_8 0.25 0.33 0.20 5 2717 31 7 13 11 10
3J3F_8 0.33 0.42 0.27 8 4731 42 10 12 20 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.77 0.76 0.79 22 1505 6 4 2 0 7
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.60 0.61 0.61 20 1956 14 4 9 1 13
3ZEX_B - 0.35 0.39 0.32 136 420925 333 77 214 42 210
3ZEX_C 0.30 0.34 0.26 10 5336 43 5 23 15 19
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4482 43 11 18 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ATO_G - 0.38 0.43 0.38 3 212 5 5 0 0 4
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 485 7 0 6 1 10
4FRG_B 0.36 0.38 0.38 9 1178 15 2 13 0 15
4FRN_A 0.59 0.57 0.62 16 1822 10 2 8 0 12
4JF2_A 0.86 0.79 0.95 19 1062 1 1 0 0 5
4JRC_A - 0.34 0.35 0.35 6 605 11 0 11 0 11

^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.