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 CMfinder(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for CMfinder(20) & NanoFolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CMfinder(20) NanoFolder
MCC 0.508 > 0.241
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.493 ± 0.147 > 0.253 ± 0.150
Sensitivity 0.363 > 0.251
Positive Predictive Value 0.716 > 0.241
Total TP 139 > 96
Total TN 61650 > 61445
Total FP 60 < 330
Total FP CONTRA 4 < 32
Total FP INCONS 51 < 271
Total FP COMP 5 < 27
Total FN 244 < 287
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CMfinder(20) and NanoFolder. 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 CMfinder(20) and NanoFolder).

  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 CMfinder(20) and NanoFolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CMfinder(20) and NanoFolder. 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 CMfinder(20) and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of CMfinder(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CMfinder(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 139
Total TN 61650
Total FP 60
Total FP CONTRA 4
Total FP INCONS 51
Total FP COMP 5
Total FN 244
Total Scores
MCC 0.508
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.493 ± 0.147
Sensitivity 0.363
Positive Predictive Value 0.716
Nr of predictions 9

^top



2. Individual counts for CMfinder(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J2L_3 0.45 0.32 0.63 17 7848 11 1 9 1 36
3J3D_C 0.76 0.61 0.94 17 2757 1 0 1 0 11
3J3E_7 0.62 0.46 0.83 25 7110 5 1 4 0 29
3J3E_8 0.10 0.06 0.17 2 7491 10 1 9 0 31
3J3F_8 0.45 0.33 0.60 12 12226 8 1 7 0 24
3J3F_7 0.66 0.52 0.84 26 7229 6 0 5 1 24
3J3V_B 0.38 0.21 0.71 12 7004 5 0 5 0 45
3ZEX_D 0.58 0.39 0.86 19 6999 3 0 3 0 30
3ZND_W 0.45 0.39 0.53 9 2986 11 0 8 3 14

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 96
Total TN 61445
Total FP 330
Total FP CONTRA 32
Total FP INCONS 271
Total FP COMP 27
Total FN 287
Total Scores
MCC 0.241
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.253 ± 0.150
Sensitivity 0.251
Positive Predictive Value 0.241
Nr of predictions 9

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J2L_3 0.11 0.11 0.12 6 7824 46 3 42 1 47
3J3D_C 0.70 0.71 0.69 20 2746 9 2 7 0 8
3J3E_7 0.35 0.33 0.37 18 7091 31 1 30 0 36
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7466 47 6 31 10 33
3J3F_8 0.27 0.33 0.22 12 12192 54 9 33 12 24
3J3F_7 0.17 0.18 0.17 9 7208 43 3 40 0 41
3J3V_B 0.24 0.23 0.27 13 6973 35 1 34 0 44
3ZEX_D 0.26 0.27 0.27 13 6972 36 1 35 0 36
3ZND_W 0.18 0.22 0.17 5 2973 29 6 19 4 18

^top


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