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 Carnac(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Carnac(20) Fold
MCC 0.578 > 0.531
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.536 ± 0.093 > 0.516 ± 0.095
Sensitivity 0.373 < 0.471
Positive Predictive Value 0.899 > 0.604
Total TP 445 < 562
Total TN 240023 > 239587
Total FP 64 < 446
Total FP CONTRA 2 < 43
Total FP INCONS 48 < 326
Total FP COMP 14 < 77
Total FN 749 > 632
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Carnac(20) and Fold. 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 Carnac(20) and Fold).

  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 Carnac(20) and Fold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Carnac(20) and Fold. 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 Carnac(20) and Fold).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 445
Total TN 240023
Total FP 64
Total FP CONTRA 2
Total FP INCONS 48
Total FP COMP 14
Total FN 749
Total Scores
MCC 0.578
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.536 ± 0.093
Sensitivity 0.373
Positive Predictive Value 0.899
Nr of predictions 28

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2XQD_Y 0.79 0.63 1.00 17 2833 0 0 0 0 10
3AMU_B 0.69 0.59 0.80 16 2983 6 0 4 2 11
3IZ4_A 0.47 0.23 0.94 31 70843 2 0 2 0 101
3IZF_C 0.73 0.56 0.97 30 6872 1 0 1 0 24
3J20_1 0.86 0.74 1.00 17 2909 0 0 0 0 6
3J20_0 0.62 0.53 0.73 16 2828 7 0 6 1 14
3J2L_3 0.46 0.34 0.64 18 7847 11 0 10 1 35
3J3D_C 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 2754 1 0 1 0 8
3J3E_7 0.65 0.44 0.96 24 7115 1 0 1 0 30
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7503 0 0 0 0 33
3J3F_7 0.66 0.44 1.00 22 7238 0 0 0 0 28
3J3F_8 0.50 0.25 1.00 9 12237 0 0 0 0 27
3J3V_B 0.58 0.35 0.95 20 7000 1 0 1 0 37
3NPB_A 0.44 0.20 1.00 9 7012 2 0 0 2 37
3O58_2 0.83 0.71 0.96 27 7232 2 0 1 1 11
3O58_3 0.51 0.26 1.00 9 12394 0 0 0 0 26
3PDR_A 0.62 0.40 0.97 29 12850 3 0 1 2 43
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.60 0.38 0.94 16 3899 1 0 1 0 26
3ZEX_D 0.73 0.53 1.00 26 6995 0 0 0 0 23
3ZEX_C 0.31 0.13 0.70 7 14186 3 1 2 0 45
3ZND_W 0.47 0.39 0.56 9 2987 10 0 7 3 14
4A1C_2 0.33 0.15 0.71 5 11774 3 0 2 1 28
4A1C_3 0.67 0.52 0.88 28 7108 4 0 4 0 26
4AOB_A 0.49 0.33 0.74 14 4352 6 1 4 1 28
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1275 0 0 0 0 19
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1326 0 0 0 0 19
4FRG_B 0.43 0.19 1.00 6 3480 0 0 0 0 26

^top



Performance of Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 562
Total TN 239587
Total FP 446
Total FP CONTRA 43
Total FP INCONS 326
Total FP COMP 77
Total FN 632
Total Scores
MCC 0.531
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.516 ± 0.095
Sensitivity 0.471
Positive Predictive Value 0.604
Nr of predictions 28

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3AMU_B 0.64 0.59 0.70 16 2980 9 0 7 2 11
3IZ4_A 0.53 0.46 0.61 61 70776 44 5 34 5 71
3IZF_C 0.70 0.59 0.82 32 6864 7 1 6 0 22
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J20_0 0.45 0.40 0.52 12 2827 12 0 11 1 18
3J2L_3 0.62 0.53 0.74 28 7837 12 0 10 2 25
3J3D_C 0.47 0.43 0.52 12 2752 11 1 10 0 16
3J3E_7 0.46 0.37 0.57 20 7105 15 1 14 0 34
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7478 34 2 23 9 33
3J3F_7 0.79 0.68 0.92 34 7223 4 0 3 1 16
3J3F_8 0.28 0.28 0.29 10 12211 39 5 20 14 26
3J3V_B 0.51 0.42 0.63 24 6983 14 1 13 0 33
3NPB_A 0.70 0.61 0.80 28 6986 10 1 6 3 18
3O58_2 0.71 0.71 0.71 27 7222 12 3 8 1 11
3O58_3 0.29 0.31 0.28 11 12363 41 3 26 12 24
3PDR_A 0.77 0.64 0.94 46 12831 5 0 3 2 26
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.57 0.48 0.69 20 3887 9 1 8 0 22
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.67 0.87 33 6983 5 1 4 0 16
3ZEX_C 0.22 0.21 0.24 11 14151 45 4 30 11 41
3ZND_W 0.20 0.22 0.19 5 2977 23 1 20 2 18
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11744 43 5 27 11 28
4A1C_3 0.68 0.57 0.82 31 7102 7 1 6 0 23
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ENB_A 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1263 7 1 6 0 14
4ENC_A 0.31 0.26 0.38 5 1313 8 1 7 0 14
4FRG_B 0.24 0.22 0.27 7 3460 19 3 16 0 25

^top


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