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 RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAsubopt RDfolder
MCC 0.640 > 0.569
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.593 ± 0.129 > 0.577 ± 0.138
Sensitivity 0.635 > 0.510
Positive Predictive Value 0.660 > 0.653
Total TP 324 > 260
Total TN 22815 < 22908
Total FP 175 > 141
Total FP CONTRA 43 > 28
Total FP INCONS 124 > 110
Total FP COMP 8 > 3
Total FN 186 < 250
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 324
Total TN 22815
Total FP 175
Total FP CONTRA 43
Total FP INCONS 124
Total FP COMP 8
Total FN 186
Total Scores
MCC 0.640
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.593 ± 0.129
Sensitivity 0.635
Positive Predictive Value 0.660
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KFC_A - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 229 7 1 6 0 8
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
2RP0_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 111 0 0 0 0 2
2ZZN_D 0.52 0.55 0.52 12 961 11 3 8 0 10
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
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 0 0 0 0 1
3GCA_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 153 0 0 0 0 2
3GX2_A 0.53 0.54 0.54 15 1421 14 4 9 1 13
3IVN_B 0.88 0.78 1.00 18 885 0 0 0 0 5
3IWN_A 0.69 0.68 0.70 19 1445 9 1 7 1 9
3J0L_a - 0.35 0.36 0.36 4 400 8 3 4 1 7
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 2 11 1 9
3J3D_C 0.65 0.74 0.58 14 944 10 5 5 0 5
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1090 21 4 17 0 20
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.66 0.68 0.65 13 715 7 0 7 0 6
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.73 0.72 0.75 21 1505 7 4 3 0 8
3W3S_B 0.95 0.94 0.97 31 1957 2 0 1 1 2
4AOB_A 0.62 0.62 0.64 18 1409 11 4 6 1 11
4ATO_G - 0.36 0.43 0.33 3 211 6 6 0 0 4
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 7 0 7 0 10
4JRC_A - 0.34 0.35 0.35 6 605 11 0 11 0 11

^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.