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 Sfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Sfold RNAwolf
MCC 0.513 > 0.406
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.547 ± 0.094 > 0.432 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.517 > 0.415
Positive Predictive Value 0.509 > 0.399
Total TP 631 > 506
Total TN 878265 > 878235
Total FP 763 < 895
Total FP CONTRA 149 < 199
Total FP INCONS 459 < 564
Total FP COMP 155 > 132
Total FN 589 < 714
P-value 4.98172311752e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of Sfold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Sfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 631
Total TN 878265
Total FP 763
Total FP CONTRA 149
Total FP INCONS 459
Total FP COMP 155
Total FN 589
Total Scores
MCC 0.513
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.547 ± 0.094
Sensitivity 0.517
Positive Predictive Value 0.509
Nr of predictions 24

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.46 0.39 0.58 7 516 5 0 5 0 11
2M58_A - 0.34 0.25 0.50 3 538 3 1 2 0 9
3J0L_a - 0.55 0.64 0.50 7 397 8 5 2 1 4
3J20_2 0.57 0.58 0.56 240 421940 241 31 157 53 172
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 3 10 1 9
3J3D_C 0.44 0.37 0.54 7 955 6 1 5 0 12
3J3E_8 0.10 0.13 0.08 2 2718 32 6 16 10 13
3J3F_8 0.39 0.47 0.33 9 4734 37 8 10 19 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.78 0.72 0.84 21 1508 4 2 2 0 8
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 0.63 0.64 0.64 21 1956 13 4 8 1 12
3ZEX_B - 0.37 0.39 0.35 136 420960 296 65 191 40 210
3ZEX_C 0.41 0.34 0.50 10 5354 27 2 8 17 19
4A1C_2 0.21 0.25 0.19 5 4489 34 8 14 12 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ATO_G - 0.37 0.14 1.00 1 219 0 0 0 0 6
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 5 491 0 0 0 0 10
4FRG_B 0.67 0.58 0.78 14 1184 4 3 1 0 10
4FRN_A 0.71 0.57 0.89 16 1830 2 2 0 0 12
4JF2_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 19 1063 0 0 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.