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 RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold RNASLOpt
MCC 0.816 > 0.679
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.817 ± 0.106 > 0.723 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.780 > 0.649
Positive Predictive Value 0.861 > 0.721
Total TP 347 > 289
Total TN 24020 < 24022
Total FP 103 < 154
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 28
Total FP INCONS 47 < 84
Total FP COMP 47 > 42
Total FN 98 < 156
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^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 RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 289
Total TN 24022
Total FP 154
Total FP CONTRA 28
Total FP INCONS 84
Total FP COMP 42
Total FN 156
Total Scores
MCC 0.679
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.723 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.649
Positive Predictive Value 0.721
Nr of predictions 30

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.48 0.39 0.64 7 517 4 0 4 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 - 0.70 0.69 0.71 20 2412 13 1 7 5 9
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_8 - 0.74 0.57 1.00 4 72 0 0 0 0 3
3J0L_a - 0.21 0.18 0.29 2 404 6 3 2 1 9
3J0L_1 - 0.73 0.62 0.89 8 475 4 0 1 3 5
3J0L_h - 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2119 0 0 0 0 11
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 4 0 2 2 2
3J0L_2 - 0.49 0.46 0.52 12 2227 18 0 11 7 14
3J16_L 0.63 0.57 0.71 12 1142 5 0 5 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 2 0 0 2 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 - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3UZL_B 0.55 0.50 0.62 8 1280 9 1 4 4 8
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.79 0.73 0.87 27 2732 5 0 4 1 10
4A1C_2 0.30 0.40 0.24 8 4482 35 13 13 9 12
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.31 0.28 0.38 8 1416 13 3 10 0 21
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 9 486 1 1 0 0 6

^top


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