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 RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold RNAsubopt
MCC 0.816 > 0.664
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.817 ± 0.106 > 0.712 ± 0.133
Sensitivity 0.780 > 0.676
Positive Predictive Value 0.861 > 0.664
Total TP 347 > 301
Total TN 24020 > 23970
Total FP 103 < 208
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 35
Total FP INCONS 47 < 117
Total FP COMP 47 < 56
Total FN 98 < 144
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^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 RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 301
Total TN 23970
Total FP 208
Total FP CONTRA 35
Total FP INCONS 117
Total FP COMP 56
Total FN 144
Total Scores
MCC 0.664
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.712 ± 0.133
Sensitivity 0.676
Positive Predictive Value 0.664
Nr of predictions 30

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAsubopt [ 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 0 513 15 3 12 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
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 - 0.85 0.86 0.83 25 2410 14 0 5 9 4
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 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_a - 0.35 0.36 0.36 4 400 8 3 4 1 7
3J0L_1 - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 473 4 0 1 3 3
3J0L_h - 0.87 0.81 0.93 26 2112 4 1 1 2 6
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 507 12 2 10 0 10
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 173 5 1 2 2 2
3J0L_2 - 0.28 0.31 0.28 8 2221 25 2 19 4 18
3J16_L 0.49 0.52 0.48 11 1136 12 3 9 0 10
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 - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3UZL_B 0.49 0.50 0.50 8 1277 15 0 8 7 8
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.85 0.84 0.86 31 2727 8 0 5 3 6
4A1C_2 0.18 0.25 0.14 5 4481 43 13 17 13 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.62 0.62 0.64 18 1409 11 4 6 1 11
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 7 0 7 0 10

^top


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