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(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for TurboFold(seed) & CentroidHomfold‑LAST [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric TurboFold(seed) CentroidHomfold‑LAST
MCC 0.509 > 0.492
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.509 ± 0.171 > 0.494 ± 0.190
Sensitivity 0.421 > 0.404
Positive Predictive Value 0.622 > 0.605
Total TP 168 > 161
Total TN 61040 < 61044
Total FP 135 > 125
Total FP CONTRA 13 = 13
Total FP INCONS 89 < 92
Total FP COMP 33 > 20
Total FN 231 < 238
P-value 1.17451270932e-06

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(seed) and CentroidHomfold-LAST. 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(seed) and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  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(seed) and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(seed) and CentroidHomfold-LAST. 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(seed) and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 168
Total TN 61040
Total FP 135
Total FP CONTRA 13
Total FP INCONS 89
Total FP COMP 33
Total FN 231
Total Scores
MCC 0.509
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.509 ± 0.171
Sensitivity 0.421
Positive Predictive Value 0.622
Nr of predictions 12

^top



2. Individual counts for TurboFold(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 1525 15 2 13 0 20
3J3E_8 0.17 0.15 0.21 5 7479 28 2 17 9 28
3J3F_8 0.39 0.36 0.42 13 12215 32 2 16 14 23
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.59 0.48 0.74 20 3889 7 1 6 0 22
4A1C_3 0.69 0.57 0.84 31 7103 6 0 6 0 23
4A1C_2 0.15 0.15 0.15 5 11748 37 3 25 9 28
4AOB_A 0.56 0.40 0.77 17 4349 6 1 4 1 25
4ENB_A 0.69 0.47 1.00 9 1266 0 0 0 0 10
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10
4FRN_A 0.69 0.56 0.87 20 5128 3 1 2 0 16
4JF2_A 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 12

^top



Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 161
Total TN 61044
Total FP 125
Total FP CONTRA 13
Total FP INCONS 92
Total FP COMP 20
Total FN 238
Total Scores
MCC 0.492
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.494 ± 0.190
Sensitivity 0.404
Positive Predictive Value 0.605
Nr of predictions 12

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ 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 1529 11 0 11 0 20
3J3E_8 0.05 0.03 0.08 1 7490 16 1 11 4 32
3J3F_8 0.33 0.33 0.33 12 12210 33 4 20 9 24
3RKF_A 0.72 0.53 1.00 18 2193 0 0 0 0 16
3SD1_A 0.64 0.45 0.90 19 3895 2 0 2 0 23
4A1C_3 0.68 0.56 0.83 30 7104 6 0 6 0 24
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.18 5 11753 29 5 18 6 28
4AOB_A 0.71 0.50 1.00 21 4350 1 0 0 1 21
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1315 0 0 0 0 8
4FRN_A 0.36 0.39 0.34 14 5110 27 3 24 0 22
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.