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 Vsfold4 - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for RNASampler(seed) & Vsfold4 [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric RNASampler(seed) Vsfold4
MCC 0.500 > 0.421
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.508 ± 0.162 > 0.442 ± 0.209
Sensitivity 0.361 > 0.358
Positive Predictive Value 0.698 > 0.500
Total TP 150 > 149
Total TN 77641 > 77558
Total FP 94 < 200
Total FP CONTRA 7 < 14
Total FP INCONS 58 < 135
Total FP COMP 29 < 51
Total FN 266 < 267
P-value 2.18141491686e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASampler(seed) and Vsfold4. 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 Vsfold4).

  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 Vsfold4).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASampler(seed) and Vsfold4. 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 Vsfold4).

^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 150
Total TN 77641
Total FP 94
Total FP CONTRA 7
Total FP INCONS 58
Total FP COMP 29
Total FN 266
Total Scores
MCC 0.500
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.508 ± 0.162
Sensitivity 0.361
Positive Predictive Value 0.698
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
3W3S_B 0.55 0.30 1.00 12 4741 1 0 0 1 28
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 Vsfold4 - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Vsfold4

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 149
Total TN 77558
Total FP 200
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 135
Total FP COMP 51
Total FN 267
Total Scores
MCC 0.421
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.442 ± 0.209
Sensitivity 0.358
Positive Predictive Value 0.500
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for Vsfold4 [ 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 1527 13 0 13 0 20
3A3A_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 27 3628 0 0 0 0 10
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3J3E_8 0.07 0.06 0.09 2 7481 32 2 18 12 31
3J3F_8 0.33 0.31 0.37 11 12216 27 4 15 8 25
3JYX_4 0.10 0.09 0.12 3 12220 33 2 21 10 30
3O58_3 0.09 0.09 0.10 3 12373 35 5 22 8 32
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.19 0.17 0.24 7 3887 22 1 21 0 35
3W3S_B 0.67 0.58 0.79 23 4724 7 0 6 1 17
4A1C_2 0.28 0.24 0.33 8 11757 28 0 16 12 25
4JF2_A 0.66 0.52 0.84 16 2831 3 0 3 0 15

^top


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