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 RNASLOpt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Carnac(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for RNASLOpt & Carnac(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric RNASLOpt Carnac(seed)
MCC 0.472 > 0.217
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.489 ± 0.158 > 0.088 ± 0.134
Sensitivity 0.392 > 0.047
Positive Predictive Value 0.574 < 1.000
Total TP 190 > 23
Total TN 81473 < 81781
Total FP 184 > 0
Total FP CONTRA 21 > 0
Total FP INCONS 120 > 0
Total FP COMP 43 > 0
Total FN 295 < 462
P-value 1.77512146924e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASLOpt and Carnac(seed). 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 RNASLOpt and Carnac(seed)).

  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 RNASLOpt and Carnac(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASLOpt and Carnac(seed). 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 RNASLOpt and Carnac(seed)).

^top





Performance of RNASLOpt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 190
Total TN 81473
Total FP 184
Total FP CONTRA 21
Total FP INCONS 120
Total FP COMP 43
Total FN 295
Total Scores
MCC 0.472
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.489 ± 0.158
Sensitivity 0.392
Positive Predictive Value 0.574
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for RNASLOpt [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.47 0.35 0.64 7 1529 4 0 4 0 13
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7483 30 1 19 10 33
3J3F_8 0.34 0.33 0.35 12 12212 35 3 19 13 24
3W1K_J 0.84 0.74 0.97 28 4157 1 1 0 0 10
3W3S_B 0.82 0.70 0.97 28 4724 2 0 1 1 12
3ZEX_C 0.26 0.21 0.33 11 14163 35 2 20 13 41
4A1C_2 0.23 0.24 0.22 8 11744 35 8 21 6 25
4A1C_3 0.67 0.52 0.88 28 7108 4 0 4 0 26
4AOB_A 0.26 0.19 0.38 8 4350 13 2 11 0 34
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10
4FRG_B 0.56 0.47 0.68 15 3464 7 1 6 0 17
4FRN_A 0.20 0.17 0.26 6 5128 17 2 15 0 30
4JF2_A 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 12

^top



Performance of Carnac(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Carnac(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 23
Total TN 81781
Total FP 0
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 0
Total FP COMP 0
Total FN 462
Total Scores
MCC 0.217
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.088 ± 0.134
Sensitivity 0.047
Positive Predictive Value 1.000
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for Carnac(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.44 0.20 1.00 4 1536 0 0 0 0 16
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7503 0 0 0 0 33
3J3F_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12246 0 0 0 0 36
3W1K_J 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4186 0 0 0 0 38
3W3S_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4753 0 0 0 0 40
3ZEX_C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 14196 0 0 0 0 52
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11781 0 0 0 0 33
4A1C_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7140 0 0 0 0 54
4AOB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4371 0 0 0 0 42
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1275 0 0 0 0 19
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1326 0 0 0 0 19
4FRG_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3486 0 0 0 0 32
4FRN_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 5151 0 0 0 0 36
4JF2_A 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 12

^top


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