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 Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Contrafold Fold
MCC 0.622 > 0.557
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.657 ± 0.123 > 0.524 ± 0.152
Sensitivity 0.651 > 0.589
Positive Predictive Value 0.600 > 0.534
Total TP 334 > 302
Total TN 75414 > 75405
Total FP 280 < 336
Total FP CONTRA 101 > 99
Total FP INCONS 122 < 165
Total FP COMP 57 < 72
Total FN 179 < 211
P-value 3.63594052159e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Contrafold and Fold. 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 Fold).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Contrafold and Fold. 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 Fold).

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 334
Total TN 75414
Total FP 280
Total FP CONTRA 101
Total FP INCONS 122
Total FP COMP 57
Total FN 179
Total Scores
MCC 0.622
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.657 ± 0.123
Sensitivity 0.651
Positive Predictive Value 0.600
Nr of predictions 17

^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
2KRL_A - 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 2003 9 1 0 8 3
2LC8_A 0.46 0.39 0.58 7 516 5 3 2 0 11
3ADB_C - 0.98 0.97 1.00 32 1787 0 0 0 0 1
3IYQ_A 0.28 0.39 0.20 20 22341 95 44 35 16 31
3IZ4_A 0.57 0.58 0.57 55 25440 49 18 23 8 40
3J0L_a - 0.53 0.55 0.55 6 400 6 3 2 1 5
3NKB_B - 0.63 0.68 0.59 13 713 9 0 9 0 6
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
3U4M_B - 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1256 5 0 3 2 5
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 Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 302
Total TN 75405
Total FP 336
Total FP CONTRA 99
Total FP INCONS 165
Total FP COMP 72
Total FN 211
Total Scores
MCC 0.557
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.524 ± 0.152
Sensitivity 0.589
Positive Predictive Value 0.534
Nr of predictions 17

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 2003 9 1 0 8 3
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
3ADB_C - 0.86 0.85 0.88 28 1787 4 0 4 0 5
3IYQ_A 0.24 0.33 0.18 17 22345 95 40 38 17 34
3IZ4_A 0.60 0.61 0.59 58 25437 47 16 25 6 37
3J0L_a - 0.15 0.18 0.17 2 399 11 4 6 1 9
3NKB_B - 0.41 0.42 0.42 8 716 11 4 7 0 11
3NPB_A 0.77 0.73 0.82 27 2245 11 0 6 5 10
3O58_3 0.39 0.50 0.31 11 4728 41 9 16 16 11
3PDR_A 0.93 0.92 0.94 46 4791 5 1 2 2 4
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1504 9 4 5 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.58 0.59 0.59 13 1254 9 2 7 0 9
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4482 43 11 18 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 461 7 0 6 1 10
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 8 0 7 1 10

^top


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