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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold CentroidHomfold‑LAST
MCC 0.810 > 0.752
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.811 ± 0.109 > 0.760 ± 0.134
Sensitivity 0.773 > 0.664
Positive Predictive Value 0.856 < 0.861
Total TP 333 > 286
Total TN 23845 < 23902
Total FP 103 > 83
Total FP CONTRA 9 = 9
Total FP INCONS 47 > 37
Total FP COMP 47 > 37
Total FN 98 < 145
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of ContextFold 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 ContextFold and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for ContextFold 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 ContextFold and CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 333
Total TN 23845
Total FP 103
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 47
Total FP COMP 47
Total FN 98
Total Scores
MCC 0.810
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.811 ± 0.109
Sensitivity 0.773
Positive Predictive Value 0.856
Nr of predictions 29

^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
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_2 - 0.80 0.77 0.83 20 2226 11 0 4 7 6
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_h - 0.95 0.91 1.00 29 2111 2 0 0 2 3
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 506 13 3 10 0 10
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 174 3 0 2 1 2
3J0L_a - 0.80 0.73 0.89 8 402 2 0 1 1 3
3J0L_1 - 0.75 0.69 0.82 9 473 5 0 2 3 4
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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 286
Total TN 23902
Total FP 83
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 37
Total FP COMP 37
Total FN 145
Total Scores
MCC 0.752
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.760 ± 0.134
Sensitivity 0.664
Positive Predictive Value 0.861
Nr of predictions 29

^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 -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 517 11 0 11 0 18
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
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 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2436 4 0 4 0 29
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 1 0 0 1 1
3J0L_2 - 0.55 0.31 1.00 8 2242 0 0 0 0 18
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_h - 0.88 0.84 0.93 27 2111 4 0 2 2 5
3J0L_7 - 0.83 0.70 1.00 7 512 1 0 0 1 3
3J0L_g - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 176 0 0 0 0 2
3J0L_a - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 408 3 1 2 0 11
3J0L_1 - 0.73 0.62 0.89 8 475 3 0 1 2 5
3J16_L 0.90 0.81 1.00 17 1142 0 0 0 0 4
3SN2_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 10 144 0 0 0 0 2
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 - 0.78 0.73 0.84 16 1257 4 0 3 1 6
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 7 0 6 1 8
4A1C_2 0.24 0.25 0.24 5 4495 29 8 8 13 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.85 0.72 1.00 21 1416 1 0 0 1 8
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 0 0 0 0 4

^top


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