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 Vsfold4 - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of PPfold(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for Vsfold4 & PPfold(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Vsfold4 PPfold(seed)
MCC 0.535 > 0.230
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.540 ± 0.177 > 0.110 ± 0.134
Sensitivity 0.531 > 0.079
Positive Predictive Value 0.551 < 0.686
Total TP 162 > 24
Total TN 23517 < 23776
Total FP 170 > 56
Total FP CONTRA 41 > 1
Total FP INCONS 91 > 10
Total FP COMP 38 < 45
Total FN 143 < 281
P-value 2.39162260866e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Vsfold4 and PPfold(seed). 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 Vsfold4 and PPfold(seed)).

  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 Vsfold4 and PPfold(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Vsfold4 and PPfold(seed). 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 Vsfold4 and PPfold(seed)).

^top





Performance of Vsfold4 - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Vsfold4

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 162
Total TN 23517
Total FP 170
Total FP CONTRA 41
Total FP INCONS 91
Total FP COMP 38
Total FN 143
Total Scores
MCC 0.535
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.540 ± 0.177
Sensitivity 0.531
Positive Predictive Value 0.551
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for Vsfold4 [ 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 0 515 13 0 13 0 18
3J20_0 0.95 0.95 0.95 20 1198 2 1 0 1 1
3J3D_C 0.48 0.53 0.45 10 946 12 4 8 0 9
3J3E_8 0.10 0.13 0.09 2 2720 32 9 11 12 13
3J3F_8 0.35 0.42 0.30 8 4734 30 11 8 11 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.23 0.24 0.24 7 1504 22 5 17 0 22
3W3S_B 0.74 0.70 0.79 23 1960 7 1 5 1 10
4A1C_2 0.36 0.40 0.33 8 4492 28 4 12 12 12
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 9 487 0 0 0 0 6
4FRG_B 0.60 0.58 0.64 14 1180 8 3 5 0 10
4JF2_A 0.74 0.67 0.84 16 1063 3 0 3 0 8

^top



Performance of PPfold(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 24
Total TN 23776
Total FP 56
Total FP CONTRA 1
Total FP INCONS 10
Total FP COMP 45
Total FN 281
Total Scores
MCC 0.230
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.110 ± 0.134
Sensitivity 0.079
Positive Predictive Value 0.686
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for PPfold(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.49 0.33 0.75 6 520 2 0 2 0 12
3J20_0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1219 0 0 0 0 21
3J3D_C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 968 0 0 0 0 19
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2742 6 0 0 6 15
3J3F_8 0.19 0.11 0.33 2 4755 24 0 4 20 17
3RKF_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 866 0 0 0 0 24
3SD1_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1533 0 0 0 0 29
3W3S_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1989 0 0 0 0 33
4A1C_2 0.10 0.05 0.20 1 4511 23 0 4 19 19
4AOB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1437 0 0 0 0 29
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 472 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 496 0 0 0 0 15
4FRG_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1202 0 0 0 0 24
4JF2_A 0.76 0.63 0.94 15 1066 1 1 0 0 9

^top


Matthews Correlation Coeffient, Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value have been calculated based on the paper by Gardener & Giegerich, 2004.