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 Contrafold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold Contrafold
MCC 0.816 > 0.745
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.817 ± 0.106 > 0.777 ± 0.116
Sensitivity 0.780 > 0.737
Positive Predictive Value 0.861 > 0.763
Total TP 347 > 328
Total TN 24020 > 23993
Total FP 103 < 155
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 24
Total FP INCONS 47 < 78
Total FP COMP 47 < 53
Total FN 98 < 117
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^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_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
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_2 - 0.80 0.77 0.83 20 2226 11 0 4 7 6
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 Contrafold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 328
Total TN 23993
Total FP 155
Total FP CONTRA 24
Total FP INCONS 78
Total FP COMP 53
Total FN 117
Total Scores
MCC 0.745
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.777 ± 0.116
Sensitivity 0.737
Positive Predictive Value 0.763
Nr of predictions 30

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.46 0.39 0.58 7 516 5 3 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 0.90 0.87 26 2410 11 0 4 7 3
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_a - 0.53 0.55 0.55 6 400 6 3 2 1 5
3J0L_1 - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 473 3 0 1 2 3
3J0L_h - 0.87 0.88 0.88 28 2108 6 0 4 2 4
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 512 7 1 6 0 10
3J0L_g - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 176 1 0 0 1 2
3J0L_2 - 0.28 0.31 0.28 8 2221 26 2 19 5 18
3J16_L 0.55 0.57 0.55 12 1137 10 3 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 0.90 0.88 0.93 14 1278 8 0 1 7 2
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.81 0.81 0.81 30 2726 10 0 7 3 7
4A1C_2 0.21 0.25 0.19 5 4489 33 9 13 11 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.53 0.52 0.56 15 1410 13 3 9 1 14
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.