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 0.705 > 0.488
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.739 ± 0.100 > 0.581 ± 0.136
Sensitivity 0.594 > 0.457
Positive Predictive Value 0.843 > 0.530
Total TP 360 > 277
Total TN 64163 > 64067
Total FP 90 < 276
Total FP CONTRA 6 < 29
Total FP INCONS 61 < 217
Total FP COMP 23 < 30
Total FN 246 < 329
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 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 RNAwolf - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAwolf

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 277
Total TN 64067
Total FP 276
Total FP CONTRA 29
Total FP INCONS 217
Total FP COMP 30
Total FN 329
Total Scores
MCC 0.488
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.581 ± 0.136
Sensitivity 0.457
Positive Predictive Value 0.530
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 10 1522 8 0 8 0 10
2LDL_A - 0.74 0.64 0.88 7 343 1 0 1 0 4
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 3 0 0 3 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 266 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.81 0.74 0.88 29 6072 8 0 4 4 10
2LQZ_A - 0.91 0.91 0.91 10 340 1 1 0 0 1
2LWK_A - 0.37 0.38 0.38 5 483 9 0 8 1 8
3J0L_8 - 0.93 0.88 1.00 7 183 0 0 0 0 1
3J0L_2 - 0.11 0.12 0.11 4 6181 34 5 26 3 29
3J0L_g - 0.16 0.25 0.11 1 456 8 6 2 0 3
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1214 11 0 11 0 17
3J0L_h - 0.33 0.30 0.37 13 6070 24 0 22 2 30
3J0L_1 - 0.68 0.63 0.75 12 1209 5 0 4 1 7
3J0L_a - 0.18 0.19 0.20 3 1113 12 1 11 0 13
3J16_L 0.45 0.40 0.52 12 2752 11 0 11 0 18
3SN2_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 394 0 0 0 0 0
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 2 0 0 2 0
3TS2_V - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 270 7 0 6 1 5
3U4M_B - 0.44 0.38 0.52 14 3133 13 0 13 0 23
3UZL_B 0.72 0.59 0.88 22 3545 4 1 2 1 15
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 13 617 1 0 0 1 0
4A1C_3 0.23 0.20 0.28 11 7101 28 2 26 0 43
4A1C_2 0.08 0.09 0.08 3 11741 46 10 27 9 30
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.23 0.19 0.30 8 4344 20 1 18 1 34
4ENB_A 0.35 0.32 0.40 6 1260 9 1 8 0 13
4ENC_A 0.34 0.32 0.38 6 1310 10 1 9 0 13

^top


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