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 TurboFold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric TurboFold(seed) RNAshapes
MCC 0.610 > 0.582
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.598 ± 0.185 > 0.589 ± 0.166
Sensitivity 0.598 < 0.605
Positive Predictive Value 0.630 > 0.568
Total TP 177 < 179
Total TN 27052 > 27018
Total FP 148 < 196
Total FP CONTRA 36 < 44
Total FP INCONS 68 < 92
Total FP COMP 44 < 60
Total FN 119 > 117
P-value 2.12160100812e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(seed) and RNAshapes. 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 TurboFold(seed) and RNAshapes).

  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 TurboFold(seed) and RNAshapes).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(seed) and RNAshapes. 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 TurboFold(seed) and RNAshapes).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 177
Total TN 27052
Total FP 148
Total FP CONTRA 36
Total FP INCONS 68
Total FP COMP 44
Total FN 119
Total Scores
MCC 0.610
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.598 ± 0.185
Sensitivity 0.598
Positive Predictive Value 0.630
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for TurboFold(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 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
3J3E_8 0.27 0.33 0.23 5 2720 28 6 11 11 10
3J3F_8 0.42 0.53 0.34 10 4732 35 9 10 16 9
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.71 0.69 0.74 20 1506 7 2 5 0 9
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
3ZEX_C 0.49 0.45 0.54 13 5350 15 2 9 4 16
4A1C_2 0.20 0.25 0.17 5 4486 37 9 16 12 15
4AOB_A 0.67 0.59 0.77 17 1415 6 2 3 1 12
4ENB_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 9 463 0 0 0 0 6
4ENC_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 9 486 1 1 0 0 6
4FRN_A 0.79 0.71 0.87 20 1825 3 1 2 0 8
4JF2_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 19 1063 0 0 0 0 5

^top



Performance of RNAshapes - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAshapes

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 179
Total TN 27018
Total FP 196
Total FP CONTRA 44
Total FP INCONS 92
Total FP COMP 60
Total FN 117
Total Scores
MCC 0.582
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.589 ± 0.166
Sensitivity 0.605
Positive Predictive Value 0.568
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAshapes [ 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
3J3E_8 0.26 0.33 0.21 5 2718 29 6 13 10 10
3J3F_8 0.33 0.42 0.26 8 4730 42 11 12 19 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
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
3ZEX_C 0.29 0.34 0.26 10 5335 42 5 24 13 19
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 41 11 16 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
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
4FRN_A 0.59 0.57 0.62 16 1822 10 2 8 0 12
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.