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 CentroidFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold CentroidFold
MCC 0.705 > 0.654
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.739 ± 0.100 > 0.707 ± 0.113
Sensitivity 0.594 > 0.556
Positive Predictive Value 0.843 > 0.775
Total TP 360 > 337
Total TN 64163 > 64155
Total FP 90 < 116
Total FP CONTRA 6 < 12
Total FP INCONS 61 < 86
Total FP COMP 23 > 18
Total FN 246 < 269
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 360
Total TN 64163
Total FP 90
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 61
Total FP COMP 23
Total FN 246
Total Scores
MCC 0.705
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.739 ± 0.100
Sensitivity 0.594
Positive Predictive Value 0.843
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 0.55 0.50 0.63 10 1524 6 0 6 0 10
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 0 0 0 0 2
2LHP_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 651 0 0 0 0 1
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LJJ_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 7 344 2 0 0 2 1
2LK3_A - 0.89 0.80 1.00 8 268 0 0 0 0 2
2LKR_A - 0.65 0.56 0.76 22 6076 9 0 7 2 17
2LQZ_A - 0.80 0.73 0.89 8 342 1 1 0 0 3
2LWK_A - 0.88 0.85 0.92 11 484 1 0 1 0 2
3J0L_8 - 0.93 0.88 1.00 7 183 0 0 0 0 1
3J0L_2 - 0.64 0.61 0.69 20 6187 11 2 7 2 13
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 462 3 1 2 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1212 13 0 13 0 17
3J0L_h - 0.82 0.67 1.00 29 6076 2 0 0 2 14
3J0L_1 - 0.70 0.58 0.85 11 1212 3 0 2 1 8
3J0L_a - 0.71 0.56 0.90 9 1118 1 0 1 0 7
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 0.91 0.83 1.00 5 205 0 0 0 0 1
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 247 0 0 0 0 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 271 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.75 0.57 1.00 21 3139 0 0 0 0 16
3UZL_B 0.72 0.54 0.95 20 3549 1 0 1 0 17
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
4A1C_3 0.78 0.63 0.97 34 7105 1 0 1 0 20
4A1C_2 0.20 0.15 0.28 5 11763 26 0 13 13 28
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.52 0.40 0.68 17 4346 9 1 7 1 25
4ENB_A 0.69 0.47 1.00 9 1266 0 0 0 0 10
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10

^top



Performance of CentroidFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 337
Total TN 64155
Total FP 116
Total FP CONTRA 12
Total FP INCONS 86
Total FP COMP 18
Total FN 269
Total Scores
MCC 0.654
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.707 ± 0.113
Sensitivity 0.556
Positive Predictive Value 0.775
Nr of predictions 30

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.49 0.35 0.70 7 1530 3 1 2 0 13
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 1 0 0 1 2
2LHP_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 651 0 0 0 0 1
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 343 2 0 0 2 0
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.82 0.74 0.91 29 6073 4 0 3 1 10
2LQZ_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 341 1 1 0 0 2
2LWK_A - 0.92 0.92 0.92 12 483 1 0 1 0 1
3J0L_8 - 0.93 0.88 1.00 7 183 0 0 0 0 1
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.24 0.28 8 6187 24 0 21 3 25
3J0L_g - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 465 0 0 0 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1220 5 0 5 0 17
3J0L_h - 0.77 0.65 0.90 28 6074 5 0 3 2 15
3J0L_1 - 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1215 2 0 1 1 10
3J0L_a - 0.41 0.31 0.56 5 1119 4 2 2 0 11
3J16_L 0.50 0.40 0.63 12 2756 7 0 7 0 18
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 0.91 0.83 1.00 5 205 1 0 0 1 1
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 247 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 271 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.57 0.46 0.71 17 3136 7 0 7 0 20
3UZL_B 0.72 0.54 0.95 20 3549 1 0 1 0 17
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
4A1C_3 0.67 0.56 0.81 30 7103 7 1 6 0 24
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11752 29 5 19 5 28
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.45 0.33 0.61 14 4348 10 1 8 1 28
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1314 1 1 0 0 8

^top


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