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 MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold MCFold
MCC 0.719 > 0.596
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.748 ± 0.107 > 0.625 ± 0.148
Sensitivity 0.613 < 0.626
Positive Predictive Value 0.848 > 0.575
Total TP 323 < 330
Total TN 56268 > 56075
Total FP 80 < 301
Total FP CONTRA 5 < 37
Total FP INCONS 53 < 207
Total FP COMP 22 < 57
Total FN 204 > 197
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 323
Total TN 56268
Total FP 80
Total FP CONTRA 5
Total FP INCONS 53
Total FP COMP 22
Total FN 204
Total Scores
MCC 0.719
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.748 ± 0.107
Sensitivity 0.613
Positive Predictive Value 0.848
Nr of predictions 28

^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
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
4A1C_2 0.20 0.15 0.28 5 11763 26 0 13 13 28
4A1C_3 0.78 0.63 0.97 34 7105 1 0 1 0 20
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
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 MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 330
Total TN 56075
Total FP 301
Total FP CONTRA 37
Total FP INCONS 207
Total FP COMP 57
Total FN 197
Total Scores
MCC 0.596
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.625 ± 0.148
Sensitivity 0.626
Positive Predictive Value 0.575
Nr of predictions 28

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.41 0.45 0.39 9 1517 16 0 14 2 11
2LDL_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 341 2 0 0 2 1
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 650 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 481 0 0 0 0 1
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 343 2 0 0 2 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 266 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.92 0.95 36 6067 14 0 2 12 3
2LQZ_A - 0.91 0.91 0.91 10 340 1 1 0 0 1
2LWK_A - 0.92 0.92 0.92 12 483 2 0 1 1 1
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 182 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_2 - 0.21 0.24 0.18 8 6172 39 7 29 3 25
3J0L_g - 0.13 0.25 0.08 1 452 12 8 4 0 3
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1206 19 4 15 0 17
3J0L_h - 0.91 0.91 0.91 39 6062 13 0 4 9 4
3J0L_1 - 0.79 0.79 0.79 15 1206 6 0 4 2 4
3J0L_a - 0.16 0.19 0.17 3 1110 15 1 14 0 13
3J16_L 0.45 0.47 0.44 14 2743 19 1 17 1 16
3SN2_B 0.55 0.58 0.54 7 393 6 0 6 0 5
3TRZ_Z - -0.04 0.00 0.00 0 201 9 0 9 0 6
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 247 2 0 0 2 0
3TS2_V - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 268 9 0 8 1 5
3U4M_B - 0.59 0.59 0.59 22 3123 15 0 15 0 15
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 13 617 1 0 0 1 0
4A1C_2 0.13 0.15 0.11 5 11735 56 10 31 15 28
4A1C_3 0.68 0.67 0.71 36 7089 17 1 14 2 18
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4ENB_A 0.61 0.63 0.60 12 1255 8 2 6 0 7
4ENC_A 0.28 0.32 0.27 6 1304 17 2 14 1 13

^top


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