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 PPfold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric PPfold(20) NanoFolder
MCC 0.664 > 0.271
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.625 ± 0.155 > 0.294 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.541 > 0.286
Positive Predictive Value 0.818 > 0.266
Total TP 269 > 142
Total TN 82038 > 81834
Total FP 79 < 428
Total FP CONTRA 0 < 51
Total FP INCONS 60 < 340
Total FP COMP 19 < 37
Total FN 228 < 355
P-value 1.70887622364e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 269
Total TN 82038
Total FP 79
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 60
Total FP COMP 19
Total FN 228
Total Scores
MCC 0.664
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.625 ± 0.155
Sensitivity 0.541
Positive Predictive Value 0.818
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for PPfold(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 0.78 0.62 0.97 33 7841 3 0 1 2 20
3J3D_C 0.80 0.68 0.95 19 2755 1 0 1 0 9
3J3E_7 0.74 0.61 0.89 33 7103 4 0 4 0 21
3J3E_8 0.14 0.09 0.23 3 7490 13 0 10 3 30
3J3F_8 0.33 0.25 0.43 9 12225 18 0 12 6 27
3J3F_7 0.80 0.68 0.94 34 7224 3 0 2 1 16
3ZEX_D 0.81 0.71 0.92 35 6983 3 0 3 0 14
3ZND_W 0.47 0.43 0.53 10 2984 11 0 9 2 13
4A1C_3 0.77 0.63 0.94 34 7104 2 0 2 0 20
4A1C_2 0.21 0.15 0.29 5 11764 16 0 12 4 28
4AOB_A 0.74 0.60 0.93 25 4344 3 0 2 1 17
4ENC_A 0.58 0.42 0.80 8 1316 2 0 2 0 11

^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.