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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold CentroidHomfold‑LAST
MCC 0.662 > 0.565
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.676 ± 0.208 > 0.505 ± 0.388
Sensitivity 0.608 > 0.492
Positive Predictive Value 0.731 > 0.660
Total TP 79 > 64
Total TN 9028 < 9039
Total FP 44 < 48
Total FP CONTRA 6 < 9
Total FP INCONS 23 < 24
Total FP COMP 15 = 15
Total FN 51 < 66
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of ContextFold and CentroidHomfold-LAST. 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for ContextFold and CentroidHomfold-LAST. 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 79
Total TN 9028
Total FP 44
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 23
Total FP COMP 15
Total FN 51
Total Scores
MCC 0.662
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.676 ± 0.208
Sensitivity 0.608
Positive Predictive Value 0.731
Nr of predictions 7

^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
3J0L_a - 0.80 0.73 0.89 8 402 2 0 1 1 3
3U4M_B - 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1255 0 0 0 0 1
4A1C_2 0.26 0.25 0.28 5 4498 26 3 10 13 15
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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 64
Total TN 9039
Total FP 48
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 24
Total FP COMP 15
Total FN 66
Total Scores
MCC 0.565
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.505 ± 0.388
Sensitivity 0.492
Positive Predictive Value 0.660
Nr of predictions 7

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ 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 0 517 11 0 11 0 18
3J0L_a - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 408 3 1 2 0 11
3U4M_B - 0.78 0.73 0.84 16 1257 4 0 3 1 6
4A1C_2 0.24 0.25 0.24 5 4495 29 8 8 13 15
4AOB_A 0.85 0.72 1.00 21 1416 1 0 0 1 8
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 0 0 0 0 4

^top


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