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 ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for ContextFold & CentroidFold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric ContextFold CentroidFold
MCC 0.816 > 0.747
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.817 ± 0.106 > 0.773 ± 0.117
Sensitivity 0.780 > 0.721
Positive Predictive Value 0.861 > 0.783
Total TP 347 > 321
Total TN 24020 > 24013
Total FP 103 < 133
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 19
Total FP INCONS 47 < 70
Total FP COMP 47 > 44
Total FN 98 < 124
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of ContextFold and CentroidFold. 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 ContextFold and CentroidFold).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for ContextFold and CentroidFold. 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 ContextFold and CentroidFold).

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 347
Total TN 24020
Total FP 103
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 47
Total FP COMP 47
Total FN 98
Total Scores
MCC 0.816
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.817 ± 0.106
Sensitivity 0.780
Positive Predictive Value 0.861
Nr of predictions 30

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.58 0.56 0.63 10 512 6 0 6 0 8
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 0 0 0 0 0
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 0 0 0 0 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LJJ_A - 0.92 0.86 1.00 6 124 3 0 0 3 1
2LK3_A - 0.94 0.89 1.00 8 92 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.70 0.66 0.76 19 2415 12 0 6 6 10
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 1 0 0 1 0
2LWK_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 196 1 0 0 1 0
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_2 - 0.80 0.77 0.83 20 2226 11 0 4 7 6
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 174 3 0 2 1 2
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 506 13 3 10 0 10
3J0L_h - 0.95 0.91 1.00 29 2111 2 0 0 2 3
3J0L_1 - 0.75 0.69 0.82 9 473 5 0 2 3 4
3J0L_a - 0.80 0.73 0.89 8 402 2 0 1 1 3
3J16_L 0.90 0.81 1.00 17 1142 0 0 0 0 4
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 87 0 0 0 0 0
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 112 0 0 0 0 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 103 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1255 0 0 0 0 1
3UZL_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 1279 7 0 0 7 2
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.96 0.92 1.00 34 2729 1 0 0 1 3
4A1C_2 0.26 0.25 0.28 5 4498 26 3 10 13 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.62 0.59 0.68 17 1412 9 2 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 9 463 0 0 0 0 6
4ENC_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 9 486 1 1 0 0 6

^top



Performance of CentroidFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 321
Total TN 24013
Total FP 133
Total FP CONTRA 19
Total FP INCONS 70
Total FP COMP 44
Total FN 124
Total Scores
MCC 0.747
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.773 ± 0.117
Sensitivity 0.721
Positive Predictive Value 0.783
Nr of predictions 30

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.51 0.39 0.70 7 518 3 1 2 0 11
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 0 0 0 0 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 123 3 0 0 3 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.88 0.86 0.89 25 2412 8 0 3 5 4
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2LWK_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 196 1 0 0 1 0
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_2 - 0.28 0.31 0.28 8 2221 24 2 19 3 18
3J0L_g - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 176 0 0 0 0 2
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 514 5 1 4 0 10
3J0L_h - 0.89 0.88 0.90 28 2109 5 0 3 2 4
3J0L_1 - 0.73 0.62 0.89 8 475 3 0 1 2 5
3J0L_a - 0.41 0.36 0.50 4 403 5 3 1 1 7
3J16_L 0.59 0.57 0.63 12 1140 7 0 7 0 9
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 87 1 0 0 1 0
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 112 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 103 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1256 5 0 3 2 5
3UZL_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 1279 7 0 0 7 2
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.80 0.78 0.83 29 2728 8 0 6 2 8
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.19 5 4490 29 9 12 8 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 1 0 0 1 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 1 0 0 1 4

^top


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