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(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(seed) MCFold
MCC 0.478 > 0.361
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.490 ± 0.165 > 0.412 ± 0.177
Sensitivity 0.346 < 0.381
Positive Predictive Value 0.667 > 0.348
Total TP 148 < 163
Total TN 87077 > 86831
Total FP 106 < 362
Total FP CONTRA 8 < 52
Total FP INCONS 66 < 253
Total FP COMP 32 < 57
Total FN 280 > 265
P-value 9.07229227445e-09

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASampler(seed) and MCFold. 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(seed) and MCFold).

  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(seed) and MCFold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASampler(seed) and MCFold. 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(seed) and MCFold).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 148
Total TN 87077
Total FP 106
Total FP CONTRA 8
Total FP INCONS 66
Total FP COMP 32
Total FN 280
Total Scores
MCC 0.478
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.490 ± 0.165
Sensitivity 0.346
Positive Predictive Value 0.667
Nr of predictions 13

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 396 0 0 0 0 1
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1530 10 0 10 0 20
3A3A_A 0.70 0.49 1.00 18 3637 0 0 0 0 19
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3J3E_8 0.12 0.09 0.17 3 7485 22 2 13 7 30
3J3F_8 0.44 0.33 0.57 12 12225 15 1 8 6 24
3JYX_4 0.39 0.30 0.50 10 12226 13 2 8 3 23
3O58_3 0.45 0.34 0.60 12 12383 12 2 6 4 23
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.60 0.38 0.94 16 3899 1 0 1 0 26
3ZEX_C 0.32 0.19 0.53 10 14177 13 1 8 4 42
4A1C_2 0.31 0.24 0.40 8 11761 20 0 12 8 25
4JF2_A 0.57 0.32 1.00 10 2840 0 0 0 0 21

^top



Performance of MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 163
Total TN 86831
Total FP 362
Total FP CONTRA 52
Total FP INCONS 253
Total FP COMP 57
Total FN 265
Total Scores
MCC 0.361
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.412 ± 0.177
Sensitivity 0.381
Positive Predictive Value 0.348
Nr of predictions 13

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 396 1 0 0 1 1
2LC8_A 0.41 0.45 0.39 9 1517 16 0 14 2 11
3A3A_A 0.89 0.86 0.91 32 3620 3 1 2 0 5
3IVN_B 0.39 0.39 0.40 12 2316 18 0 18 0 19
3J3E_8 0.12 0.12 0.12 4 7470 46 3 26 17 29
3J3F_8 0.13 0.17 0.11 6 12191 61 9 40 12 30
3JYX_4 0.20 0.24 0.17 8 12199 43 16 23 4 25
3O58_3 0.22 0.26 0.19 9 12355 45 9 30 6 26
3RKF_A 0.70 0.65 0.76 22 2182 7 1 6 0 12
3SD1_A 0.33 0.33 0.35 14 3876 26 0 26 0 28
3ZEX_C 0.24 0.21 0.28 11 14156 29 3 26 0 41
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.11 5 11735 56 10 31 15 28
4JF2_A 0.66 0.68 0.66 21 2818 11 0 11 0 10

^top


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