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 UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold UNAFold
MCC 0.816 > 0.690
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.817 ± 0.106 > 0.739 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.780 > 0.697
Positive Predictive Value 0.861 > 0.695
Total TP 347 > 310
Total TN 24020 > 23977
Total FP 103 < 194
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 34
Total FP INCONS 47 < 102
Total FP COMP 47 < 58
Total FN 98 < 135
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^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 UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for UNAFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 310
Total TN 23977
Total FP 194
Total FP CONTRA 34
Total FP INCONS 102
Total FP COMP 58
Total FN 135
Total Scores
MCC 0.690
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.739 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.697
Positive Predictive Value 0.695
Nr of predictions 30

^top



2. Individual counts for UNAFold [ 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 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 29 2411 6 0 0 6 0
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 - 0.55 0.64 0.50 7 397 8 5 2 1 4
3J0L_1 - 0.75 0.69 0.82 9 473 4 0 2 2 4
3J0L_h - 0.87 0.81 0.93 26 2112 4 1 1 2 6
3J0L_7 - 0.66 0.70 0.64 7 508 5 2 2 1 3
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 174 4 0 2 2 2
3J0L_2 - 0.30 0.31 0.31 8 2224 25 2 16 7 18
3J16_L 0.31 0.33 0.30 7 1136 16 3 13 0 14
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 0.88 0.86 0.89 32 2727 7 0 4 3 5
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 42 11 17 14 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 485 7 0 6 1 10

^top


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