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 TurboFold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of CMfinder(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric TurboFold(20) CMfinder(20)
MCC 0.634 > 0.539
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.620 ± 0.158 > 0.527 ± 0.138
Sensitivity 0.541 > 0.389
Positive Predictive Value 0.747 < 0.751
Total TP 210 > 151
Total TN 60878 < 60958
Total FP 101 > 56
Total FP CONTRA 6 > 4
Total FP INCONS 65 > 46
Total FP COMP 30 > 6
Total FN 178 < 237
P-value 1.58287649515e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(20) and CMfinder(20). 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 TurboFold(20) and CMfinder(20)).

  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 TurboFold(20) and CMfinder(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(20) and CMfinder(20). 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 TurboFold(20) and CMfinder(20)).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 210
Total TN 60878
Total FP 101
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 65
Total FP COMP 30
Total FN 178
Total Scores
MCC 0.634
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.620 ± 0.158
Sensitivity 0.541
Positive Predictive Value 0.747
Nr of predictions 10

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J20_0 0.66 0.57 0.77 17 2828 6 0 5 1 13
3J2L_3 0.74 0.58 0.94 31 7842 5 0 2 3 22
3J3D_C 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 2754 1 0 1 0 8
3J3E_8 0.17 0.15 0.21 5 7479 28 2 17 9 28
3J3E_7 0.65 0.54 0.78 29 7103 8 1 7 0 25
3J3F_8 0.38 0.36 0.39 13 12213 34 2 18 14 23
3J3F_7 0.79 0.68 0.92 34 7223 4 0 3 1 16
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.63 0.91 31 6987 3 0 3 0 18
3ZND_W 0.43 0.39 0.47 9 2984 12 1 9 2 14
4FRG_B 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 3465 0 0 0 0 11

^top



Performance of CMfinder(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 151
Total TN 60958
Total FP 56
Total FP CONTRA 4
Total FP INCONS 46
Total FP COMP 6
Total FN 237
Total Scores
MCC 0.539
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.527 ± 0.138
Sensitivity 0.389
Positive Predictive Value 0.751
Nr of predictions 10

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J20_0 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2833 1 0 0 1 13
3J2L_3 0.45 0.32 0.63 17 7848 11 1 9 1 36
3J3D_C 0.76 0.61 0.94 17 2757 1 0 1 0 11
3J3E_8 0.10 0.06 0.17 2 7491 10 1 9 0 31
3J3E_7 0.62 0.46 0.83 25 7110 5 1 4 0 29
3J3F_8 0.45 0.33 0.60 12 12226 8 1 7 0 24
3J3F_7 0.66 0.52 0.84 26 7229 6 0 5 1 24
3ZEX_D 0.58 0.39 0.86 19 6999 3 0 3 0 30
3ZND_W 0.45 0.39 0.53 9 2986 11 0 8 3 14
4FRG_B 0.47 0.22 1.00 7 3479 0 0 0 0 25

^top


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