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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for CentroidHomfold‑LAST & NanoFolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CentroidHomfold‑LAST NanoFolder
MCC 0.557 > 0.268
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.529 ± 0.129 > 0.315 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.439 > 0.280
Positive Predictive Value 0.712 > 0.266
Total TP 430 > 274
Total TN 155146 > 154719
Total FP 205 < 799
Total FP CONTRA 13 < 91
Total FP INCONS 161 < 666
Total FP COMP 31 < 42
Total FN 549 < 705
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidHomfold-LAST 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and NanoFolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidHomfold-LAST 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 430
Total TN 155146
Total FP 205
Total FP CONTRA 13
Total FP INCONS 161
Total FP COMP 31
Total FN 549
Total Scores
MCC 0.557
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.529 ± 0.129
Sensitivity 0.439
Positive Predictive Value 0.712
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1529 11 0 11 0 20
2LKR_A - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 6101 4 0 4 0 39
2M58_A - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1648 5 0 5 0 17
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J2L_3 0.73 0.62 0.87 33 7837 7 0 5 2 20
3J3D_C 0.68 0.61 0.77 17 2753 5 0 5 0 11
3J3E_8 0.05 0.03 0.08 1 7490 16 1 11 4 32
3J3E_7 0.64 0.54 0.76 29 7102 9 0 9 0 25
3J3F_8 0.33 0.33 0.33 12 12210 33 4 20 9 24
3J3F_7 0.65 0.58 0.74 29 7221 10 1 9 0 21
3J3V_B 0.51 0.37 0.72 21 6992 8 1 7 0 36
3U4M_B - 0.58 0.43 0.80 16 3140 4 0 4 0 21
3UZL_B 0.72 0.54 0.95 20 3549 1 0 1 0 17
3W3S_B 0.85 0.73 1.00 29 4724 1 0 0 1 11
3ZEX_G - 0.75 0.61 0.92 45 16422 7 0 4 3 29
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21914 33 1 30 2 77
3ZEX_D 0.75 0.65 0.86 32 6984 5 0 5 0 17
3ZND_W 0.47 0.39 0.56 9 2987 10 0 7 3 14
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.18 5 11753 29 5 18 6 28
4A1C_3 0.68 0.56 0.83 30 7104 6 0 6 0 24
4AOB_A 0.71 0.50 1.00 21 4350 1 0 0 1 21
4ENC_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1315 0 0 0 0 8
4JF2_A 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 12
4JRC_A - 0.75 0.57 1.00 13 1527 0 0 0 0 10

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 274
Total TN 154719
Total FP 799
Total FP CONTRA 91
Total FP INCONS 666
Total FP COMP 42
Total FN 705
Total Scores
MCC 0.268
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.315 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.280
Positive Predictive Value 0.266
Nr of predictions 25

^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
2LC8_A 0.52 0.55 0.50 11 1518 11 0 11 0 9
2LKR_A - 0.29 0.33 0.25 13 6054 38 8 30 0 26
2M58_A - 0.43 0.47 0.40 8 1633 12 4 8 0 9
3J16_L 0.36 0.37 0.37 11 2745 19 3 16 0 19
3J20_1 0.41 0.48 0.37 11 2896 19 5 14 0 12
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_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7466 47 6 31 10 33
3J3E_7 0.35 0.33 0.37 18 7091 31 1 30 0 36
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
3U4M_B - 0.61 0.57 0.66 21 3128 11 1 10 0 16
3UZL_B 0.36 0.35 0.38 13 3536 21 3 18 0 24
3W3S_B 0.17 0.18 0.18 7 4713 34 1 32 1 33
3ZEX_G - 0.05 0.05 0.05 4 16393 76 5 69 2 70
3ZEX_E - 0.03 0.04 0.03 3 21859 85 9 74 2 74
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
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11728 61 12 41 8 33
4A1C_3 0.48 0.46 0.51 25 7091 24 2 22 0 29
4AOB_A 0.33 0.29 0.39 12 4340 20 1 18 1 30
4ENC_A 0.57 0.58 0.58 11 1307 9 0 8 1 8
4JF2_A 0.51 0.55 0.49 17 2815 18 5 13 0 14
4JRC_A - 0.48 0.48 0.50 11 1518 11 0 11 0 12

^top


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