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 RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) Fold
MCC 0.600 > 0.531
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.613 ± 0.080 > 0.516 ± 0.095
Sensitivity 0.458 < 0.471
Positive Predictive Value 0.790 > 0.604
Total TP 547 < 562
Total TN 239826 > 239587
Total FP 199 < 446
Total FP CONTRA 18 < 43
Total FP INCONS 127 < 326
Total FP COMP 54 < 77
Total FN 647 > 632
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASampler(20) and Fold. 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 RNASampler(20) and Fold).

  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 RNASampler(20) and Fold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASampler(20) and Fold. 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 RNASampler(20) and Fold).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 547
Total TN 239826
Total FP 199
Total FP CONTRA 18
Total FP INCONS 127
Total FP COMP 54
Total FN 647
Total Scores
MCC 0.600
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.613 ± 0.080
Sensitivity 0.458
Positive Predictive Value 0.790
Nr of predictions 28

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3AMU_B 0.82 0.70 0.95 19 2983 3 0 1 2 8
3IZ4_A 0.47 0.32 0.69 42 70815 23 6 13 4 90
3IZF_C 0.74 0.57 0.97 31 6871 1 0 1 0 23
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J20_0 0.80 0.67 0.95 20 2829 2 0 1 1 10
3J2L_3 0.45 0.32 0.63 17 7848 12 1 9 2 36
3J3D_C 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 2754 1 0 1 0 8
3J3E_7 0.62 0.48 0.81 26 7108 6 0 6 0 28
3J3E_8 0.12 0.09 0.18 3 7486 21 2 12 7 30
3J3F_7 0.66 0.52 0.84 26 7229 5 0 5 0 24
3J3F_8 0.39 0.33 0.46 12 12220 17 1 13 3 24
3J3V_B 0.63 0.42 0.96 24 6996 1 0 1 0 33
3NPB_A 0.68 0.48 0.96 22 6998 4 1 0 3 24
3O58_2 0.79 0.71 0.87 27 7229 5 2 2 1 11
3O58_3 0.43 0.34 0.55 12 12381 18 2 8 8 23
3PDR_A 0.70 0.53 0.93 38 12839 5 0 3 2 34
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.67 0.48 0.95 20 3895 1 0 1 0 22
3ZEX_D 0.68 0.49 0.96 24 6996 1 0 1 0 25
3ZEX_C 0.27 0.19 0.38 10 14170 20 1 15 4 42
3ZND_W 0.41 0.39 0.43 9 2982 15 2 10 3 14
4A1C_2 0.18 0.15 0.23 5 11759 30 0 17 13 28
4A1C_3 0.74 0.56 1.00 30 7110 0 0 0 0 24
4AOB_A 0.58 0.40 0.85 17 4351 4 0 3 1 25
4ENB_A 0.60 0.37 1.00 7 1268 0 0 0 0 12
4ENC_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1315 0 0 0 0 8
4FRG_B 0.55 0.41 0.76 13 3469 4 0 4 0 19

^top



Performance of Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 562
Total TN 239587
Total FP 446
Total FP CONTRA 43
Total FP INCONS 326
Total FP COMP 77
Total FN 632
Total Scores
MCC 0.531
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.516 ± 0.095
Sensitivity 0.471
Positive Predictive Value 0.604
Nr of predictions 28

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
3AMU_B 0.64 0.59 0.70 16 2980 9 0 7 2 11
3IZ4_A 0.53 0.46 0.61 61 70776 44 5 34 5 71
3IZF_C 0.70 0.59 0.82 32 6864 7 1 6 0 22
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J20_0 0.45 0.40 0.52 12 2827 12 0 11 1 18
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_7 0.46 0.37 0.57 20 7105 15 1 14 0 34
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7478 34 2 23 9 33
3J3F_7 0.79 0.68 0.92 34 7223 4 0 3 1 16
3J3F_8 0.28 0.28 0.29 10 12211 39 5 20 14 26
3J3V_B 0.51 0.42 0.63 24 6983 14 1 13 0 33
3NPB_A 0.70 0.61 0.80 28 6986 10 1 6 3 18
3O58_2 0.71 0.71 0.71 27 7222 12 3 8 1 11
3O58_3 0.29 0.31 0.28 11 12363 41 3 26 12 24
3PDR_A 0.77 0.64 0.94 46 12831 5 0 3 2 26
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.57 0.48 0.69 20 3887 9 1 8 0 22
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.67 0.87 33 6983 5 1 4 0 16
3ZEX_C 0.22 0.21 0.24 11 14151 45 4 30 11 41
3ZND_W 0.20 0.22 0.19 5 2977 23 1 20 2 18
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11744 43 5 27 11 28
4A1C_3 0.68 0.57 0.82 31 7102 7 1 6 0 23
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ENB_A 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1263 7 1 6 0 14
4ENC_A 0.31 0.26 0.38 5 1313 8 1 7 0 14
4FRG_B 0.24 0.22 0.27 7 3460 19 3 16 0 25

^top


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