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 MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold MCFold
MCC 0.825 > 0.683
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.819 ± 0.112 > 0.663 ± 0.156
Sensitivity 0.790 > 0.710
Positive Predictive Value 0.868 > 0.668
Total TP 316 > 284
Total TN 21329 > 21268
Total FP 87 < 210
Total FP CONTRA 7 < 32
Total FP INCONS 41 < 109
Total FP COMP 39 < 69
Total FN 84 < 116
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 316
Total TN 21329
Total FP 87
Total FP CONTRA 7
Total FP INCONS 41
Total FP COMP 39
Total FN 84
Total Scores
MCC 0.825
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.819 ± 0.112
Sensitivity 0.790
Positive Predictive Value 0.868
Nr of predictions 28

^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_1 - 0.75 0.69 0.82 9 473 5 0 2 3 4
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
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
3J0L_a - 0.80 0.73 0.89 8 402 2 0 1 1 3
3J0L_h - 0.95 0.91 1.00 29 2111 2 0 0 2 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
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_2 0.26 0.25 0.28 5 4498 26 3 10 13 15
4A1C_3 0.96 0.92 1.00 34 2729 1 0 0 1 3
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
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 MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 284
Total TN 21268
Total FP 210
Total FP CONTRA 32
Total FP INCONS 109
Total FP COMP 69
Total FN 116
Total Scores
MCC 0.683
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.663 ± 0.156
Sensitivity 0.710
Positive Predictive Value 0.668
Nr of predictions 28

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.44 0.44 0.47 8 511 10 0 9 1 10
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 1 0 0 1 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 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 29 2411 11 0 0 11 0
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 3 0 0 3 0
2LWK_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 196 2 0 0 2 0
3J0L_1 - 0.88 0.85 0.92 11 472 5 0 1 4 2
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 504 15 6 9 0 10
3J0L_g - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 170 7 4 2 1 2
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.27 0.25 7 2222 29 4 17 8 19
3J0L_a - 0.14 0.18 0.15 2 398 13 1 10 2 9
3J0L_h - 0.98 0.97 1.00 31 2109 2 0 0 2 1
3J16_L 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1136 12 4 7 1 9
3SN2_B 0.58 0.58 0.64 7 143 4 0 4 0 5
3TRZ_Z - -0.05 0.00 0.00 0 88 4 0 4 0 5
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 112 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - -0.05 0.00 0.00 0 102 7 0 6 1 5
3U4M_B - 0.74 0.77 0.71 17 1252 10 1 6 3 5
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 1 0 0 1 0
4A1C_2 0.18 0.25 0.14 5 4480 45 12 19 14 15
4A1C_3 0.86 0.86 0.86 32 2726 9 0 5 4 5
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4ENB_A 0.78 0.73 0.85 11 459 4 0 2 2 4
4ENC_A 0.34 0.33 0.38 5 483 11 0 8 3 10

^top


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