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 MaxExpect - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric MaxExpect NanoFolder
MCC 0.491 > 0.272
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.457 ± 0.114 > 0.326 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.424 > 0.284
Positive Predictive Value 0.575 > 0.269
Total TP 419 > 281
Total TN 155549 > 155234
Total FP 361 < 805
Total FP CONTRA 22 < 93
Total FP INCONS 288 < 670
Total FP COMP 51 > 42
Total FN 570 < 708
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of MaxExpect 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 MaxExpect 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 MaxExpect and NanoFolder).

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

^top





Performance of MaxExpect - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MaxExpect

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 419
Total TN 155549
Total FP 361
Total FP CONTRA 22
Total FP INCONS 288
Total FP COMP 51
Total FN 570
Total Scores
MCC 0.491
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.457 ± 0.114
Sensitivity 0.424
Positive Predictive Value 0.575
Nr of predictions 26

^top



2. Individual counts for MaxExpect [ 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 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2LKR_A - 0.81 0.74 0.88 29 6072 6 0 4 2 10
2M58_A - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1640 13 0 13 0 17
3J16_L 0.29 0.23 0.37 7 2756 12 0 12 0 23
3J20_1 0.73 0.70 0.76 16 2905 5 0 5 0 7
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_8 0.07 0.06 0.08 2 7478 32 2 21 9 31
3J3E_7 0.46 0.37 0.59 20 7106 14 1 13 0 34
3J3F_8 0.32 0.31 0.33 11 12213 36 3 19 14 25
3J3F_7 0.79 0.68 0.92 34 7223 4 0 3 1 16
3J3V_B 0.50 0.40 0.62 23 6984 14 1 13 0 34
3U4M_B - 0.45 0.35 0.59 13 3138 9 1 8 0 24
3UZL_B 0.77 0.62 0.96 23 3546 1 0 1 0 14
3W3S_B 0.88 0.78 1.00 31 4722 1 0 0 1 9
3ZEX_D 0.69 0.61 0.79 30 6983 8 1 7 0 19
3ZEX_G - 0.77 0.66 0.91 49 16417 11 0 5 6 25
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21893 54 2 50 2 77
3ZND_W 0.20 0.22 0.19 5 2977 23 1 20 2 18
4A1C_3 0.69 0.57 0.84 31 7103 6 0 6 0 23
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11746 41 4 26 11 28
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ATO_G - 0.38 0.30 0.50 3 522 3 0 3 0 7
4ENC_A 0.31 0.26 0.38 5 1313 8 1 7 0 14
4JF2_A 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 12
4JRC_A - 0.29 0.26 0.35 6 1523 11 0 11 0 17

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 281
Total TN 155234
Total FP 805
Total FP CONTRA 93
Total FP INCONS 670
Total FP COMP 42
Total FN 708
Total Scores
MCC 0.272
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.326 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.284
Positive Predictive Value 0.269
Nr of predictions 26

^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_D 0.26 0.27 0.27 13 6972 36 1 35 0 36
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
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
4ATO_G - 0.61 0.70 0.54 7 515 6 2 4 0 3
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.