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 MXScarna(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric MXScarna(20) NanoFolder
MCC 0.586 > 0.269
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.570 ± 0.130 > 0.291 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.498 > 0.280
Positive Predictive Value 0.695 > 0.267
Total TP 276 > 155
Total TN 88991 > 88807
Total FP 165 < 463
Total FP CONTRA 17 < 52
Total FP INCONS 104 < 374
Total FP COMP 44 > 37
Total FN 278 < 399
P-value 2.41358941668e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 276
Total TN 88991
Total FP 165
Total FP CONTRA 17
Total FP INCONS 104
Total FP COMP 44
Total FN 278
Total Scores
MCC 0.586
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.570 ± 0.130
Sensitivity 0.498
Positive Predictive Value 0.695
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J20_1 0.93 0.87 1.00 20 2906 0 0 0 0 3
3J2L_3 0.54 0.42 0.71 22 7844 11 1 8 2 31
3J3D_C 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 2754 1 0 1 0 8
3J3E_7 0.61 0.54 0.69 29 7098 13 2 11 0 25
3J3E_8 0.14 0.09 0.23 3 7490 15 2 8 5 30
3J3F_8 0.43 0.36 0.52 13 12221 26 2 10 14 23
3J3F_7 0.66 0.60 0.73 30 7219 12 1 10 1 20
3J3V_B 0.74 0.61 0.90 35 6982 4 1 3 0 22
3ZEX_D 0.68 0.63 0.74 31 6979 11 2 9 0 18
3ZND_W 0.37 0.35 0.40 8 2983 15 2 10 3 15
4A1C_3 0.64 0.56 0.75 30 7100 11 2 8 1 24
4A1C_2 0.18 0.15 0.21 5 11757 36 2 17 17 28
4AOB_A 0.62 0.55 0.72 23 4339 10 0 9 1 19
4ENC_A 0.60 0.37 1.00 7 1319 0 0 0 0 12

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 155
Total TN 88807
Total FP 463
Total FP CONTRA 52
Total FP INCONS 374
Total FP COMP 37
Total FN 399
Total Scores
MCC 0.269
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.291 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.280
Positive Predictive Value 0.267
Nr of predictions 14

^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
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_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
4A1C_3 0.48 0.46 0.51 25 7091 24 2 22 0 29
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11728 61 12 41 8 33
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

^top


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