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 RNAalifold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric RNAalifold(seed) RNASLOpt
MCC 0.544 > 0.449
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.501 ± 0.151 > 0.475 ± 0.169
Sensitivity 0.327 < 0.376
Positive Predictive Value 0.910 > 0.542
Total TP 141 < 162
Total TN 74509 > 74365
Total FP 18 < 180
Total FP CONTRA 1 < 21
Total FP INCONS 13 < 116
Total FP COMP 4 < 43
Total FN 290 > 269
P-value 2.20167918023e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNAalifold(seed) and RNASLOpt).

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 141
Total TN 74509
Total FP 18
Total FP CONTRA 1
Total FP INCONS 13
Total FP COMP 4
Total FN 290
Total Scores
MCC 0.544
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.501 ± 0.151
Sensitivity 0.327
Positive Predictive Value 0.910
Nr of predictions 13

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1528 12 0 12 0 20
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7503 0 0 0 0 33
3J3F_8 0.50 0.25 1.00 9 12237 0 0 0 0 27
3W1K_J 0.71 0.50 1.00 19 4167 0 0 0 0 19
3W3S_B 0.67 0.45 1.00 18 4735 1 0 0 1 22
3ZEX_C 0.42 0.17 1.00 9 14187 0 0 0 0 43
4A1C_2 0.39 0.15 1.00 5 11776 2 0 0 2 28
4AOB_A 0.72 0.52 1.00 22 4349 1 0 0 1 20
4ENB_A 0.56 0.32 1.00 6 1269 0 0 0 0 13
4ENC_A 0.56 0.32 1.00 6 1320 0 0 0 0 13
4FRG_B 0.73 0.53 1.00 17 3469 0 0 0 0 15
4FRN_A 0.69 0.53 0.90 19 5130 2 1 1 0 17
4JF2_A 0.59 0.35 1.00 11 2839 0 0 0 0 20

^top



Performance of RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 162
Total TN 74365
Total FP 180
Total FP CONTRA 21
Total FP INCONS 116
Total FP COMP 43
Total FN 269
Total Scores
MCC 0.449
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.475 ± 0.169
Sensitivity 0.376
Positive Predictive Value 0.542
Nr of predictions 13

^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
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


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