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 Vsfold5 - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for RNASampler(seed) & Vsfold5 [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric RNASampler(seed) Vsfold5
MCC 0.500 > 0.470
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.508 ± 0.162 > 0.485 ± 0.202
Sensitivity 0.361 < 0.425
Positive Predictive Value 0.698 > 0.525
Total TP 150 < 177
Total TN 77641 > 77519
Total FP 94 < 210
Total FP CONTRA 7 < 25
Total FP INCONS 58 < 135
Total FP COMP 29 < 50
Total FN 266 > 239
P-value 2.69229414982e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASampler(seed) and Vsfold5. 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 Vsfold5).

  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 Vsfold5).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASampler(seed) and Vsfold5. 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 Vsfold5).

^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 Vsfold5 - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Vsfold5

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 177
Total TN 77519
Total FP 210
Total FP CONTRA 25
Total FP INCONS 135
Total FP COMP 50
Total FN 239
Total Scores
MCC 0.470
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.485 ± 0.202
Sensitivity 0.425
Positive Predictive Value 0.525
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for Vsfold5 [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 397 0 0 0 0 2
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 0.76 0.58 1.00 18 2328 0 0 0 0 13
3J3E_8 0.06 0.06 0.08 2 7477 31 5 19 7 31
3J3F_8 0.33 0.33 0.33 12 12210 35 5 19 11 24
3JYX_4 0.31 0.30 0.31 10 12214 32 3 19 10 23
3O58_3 0.39 0.37 0.41 13 12371 28 7 12 9 22
3RKF_A 0.75 0.65 0.88 22 2186 3 0 3 0 12
3SD1_A 0.11 0.10 0.15 4 3890 22 0 22 0 38
3W3S_B 0.76 0.70 0.82 28 4719 7 1 5 1 12
4A1C_2 0.24 0.24 0.24 8 11748 37 3 22 12 25
4JF2_A 0.84 0.77 0.92 24 2824 2 1 1 0 7

^top


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