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 Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Carnac(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for Contrafold & Carnac(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Contrafold Carnac(seed)
MCC 0.735 > 0.104
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.727 ± 0.142 > 0.033 ± 0.072
Sensitivity 0.723 > 0.011
Positive Predictive Value 0.754 < 1.000
Total TP 264 > 4
Total TN 26186 < 26532
Total FP 109 > 0
Total FP CONTRA 36 > 0
Total FP INCONS 50 > 0
Total FP COMP 23 > 0
Total FN 101 < 361
P-value 2.78993384543e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Contrafold and Carnac(seed). 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 Contrafold and Carnac(seed)).

  2. Average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were plotted for different RNA families, for which at least 3 members were present in the benchmarking dataset. 'n' denotes the number of MCCs used to calculate the average and CI. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for Contrafold and Carnac(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Contrafold and Carnac(seed). 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 Contrafold and Carnac(seed)).

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 264
Total TN 26186
Total FP 109
Total FP CONTRA 36
Total FP INCONS 50
Total FP COMP 23
Total FN 101
Total Scores
MCC 0.735
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.727 ± 0.142
Sensitivity 0.723
Positive Predictive Value 0.754
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.46 0.39 0.58 7 516 5 3 2 0 11
3A3A_A 0.97 0.93 1.00 28 1472 0 0 0 0 2
3GX2_A 0.93 0.89 0.96 25 1423 2 1 0 1 3
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.86 0.84 0.89 31 2243 9 1 3 5 6
3O58_3 0.32 0.36 0.29 8 4736 21 7 13 1 14
3PDR_A 0.83 0.86 0.80 43 4786 13 5 6 2 7
3RKF_A 0.87 0.83 0.91 20 844 2 2 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1504 9 5 4 0 9
4A1C_2 0.21 0.25 0.19 5 4489 33 9 13 11 15
4AOB_A 0.53 0.52 0.56 15 1410 13 3 9 1 14
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 1 0 0 1 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 1 0 0 1 4

^top



Performance of Carnac(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Carnac(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 4
Total TN 26532
Total FP 0
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 0
Total FP COMP 0
Total FN 361
Total Scores
MCC 0.104
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.033 ± 0.072
Sensitivity 0.011
Positive Predictive Value 1.000
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for Carnac(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.47 0.22 1.00 4 524 0 0 0 0 14
3A3A_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1500 0 0 0 0 30
3GX2_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1449 0 0 0 0 28
3IVN_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 903 0 0 0 0 23
3LA5_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 954 0 0 0 0 25
3NPB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2278 0 0 0 0 37
3O58_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4764 0 0 0 0 22
3PDR_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4840 0 0 0 0 50
3RKF_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 866 0 0 0 0 24
3SD1_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1533 0 0 0 0 29
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4516 0 0 0 0 20
4AOB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1437 0 0 0 0 29
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 472 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 496 0 0 0 0 15

^top


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