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 RNAwolf - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold RNAwolf
MCC 0.816 > 0.555
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.817 ± 0.106 > 0.617 ± 0.141
Sensitivity 0.780 > 0.544
Positive Predictive Value 0.861 > 0.583
Total TP 347 > 242
Total TN 24020 > 24008
Total FP 103 < 227
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 33
Total FP INCONS 47 < 140
Total FP COMP 47 < 54
Total FN 98 < 203
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^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 RNAwolf - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAwolf

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 242
Total TN 24008
Total FP 227
Total FP CONTRA 33
Total FP INCONS 140
Total FP COMP 54
Total FN 203
Total Scores
MCC 0.555
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.617 ± 0.141
Sensitivity 0.544
Positive Predictive Value 0.583
Nr of predictions 30

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.52 0.50 0.56 9 512 7 0 7 0 9
2LDL_A - 0.88 0.78 1.00 7 133 0 0 0 0 2
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 0.96 0.93 1.00 13 176 0 0 0 0 1
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 - 0.84 0.79 0.88 23 2414 11 0 3 8 6
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 1 0 0 1 0
2LWK_A - 0.48 0.45 0.56 5 198 5 0 4 1 6
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_a - 0.14 0.18 0.14 2 397 13 4 8 1 9
3J0L_1 - 0.68 0.54 0.88 7 476 5 0 1 4 6
3J0L_h - 0.47 0.41 0.57 13 2117 12 1 9 2 19
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 509 10 1 9 0 10
3J0L_g - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 171 7 4 1 2 2
3J0L_2 - 0.14 0.15 0.15 4 2223 26 4 19 3 22
3J16_L 0.58 0.57 0.60 12 1139 9 2 6 1 9
3SN2_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 142 0 0 0 0 0
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 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - -0.05 0.00 0.00 0 103 6 0 5 1 5
3U4M_B - 0.50 0.50 0.52 11 1255 12 1 9 2 11
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 1 0 0 1 0
4A1C_3 0.32 0.30 0.35 11 2732 21 1 19 1 26
4A1C_2 0.12 0.15 0.10 3 4487 38 12 14 12 17
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.26 0.24 0.30 7 1414 17 2 14 1 22
4ENB_A 0.45 0.40 0.55 6 461 5 1 4 0 9
4ENC_A 0.34 0.33 0.38 5 483 9 0 8 1 10

^top


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