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 Multilign(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Multilign(20) NanoFolder
MCC 0.537 > 0.271
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.537 ± 0.161 > 0.294 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.455 > 0.286
Positive Predictive Value 0.640 > 0.266
Total TP 226 > 142
Total TN 82014 > 81834
Total FP 148 < 428
Total FP CONTRA 15 < 51
Total FP INCONS 112 < 340
Total FP COMP 21 < 37
Total FN 271 < 355
P-value 1.62913390836e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 226
Total TN 82014
Total FP 148
Total FP CONTRA 15
Total FP INCONS 112
Total FP COMP 21
Total FN 271
Total Scores
MCC 0.537
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.537 ± 0.161
Sensitivity 0.455
Positive Predictive Value 0.640
Nr of predictions 13

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J2L_3 0.65 0.53 0.80 28 7840 9 0 7 2 25
3J3D_C 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 2754 1 0 1 0 8
3J3E_7 0.58 0.48 0.70 26 7103 11 0 11 0 28
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7481 22 6 16 0 33
3J3F_8 0.41 0.36 0.46 13 12218 27 1 14 12 23
3J3F_7 0.43 0.30 0.63 15 7236 9 0 9 0 35
3ZEX_D 0.75 0.65 0.86 32 6984 5 1 4 0 17
3ZND_W 0.41 0.39 0.43 9 2982 14 2 10 2 14
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.84 32 7102 6 0 6 0 22
4A1C_2 0.15 0.15 0.15 5 11747 33 3 26 4 28
4AOB_A 0.49 0.38 0.64 16 4346 10 1 8 1 26
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 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 142
Total TN 81834
Total FP 428
Total FP CONTRA 51
Total FP INCONS 340
Total FP COMP 37
Total FN 355
Total Scores
MCC 0.271
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.294 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.286
Positive Predictive Value 0.266
Nr of predictions 13

^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
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.