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 MaxExpect - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Contrafold MaxExpect
MCC 0.675 > 0.648
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.665 ± 0.113 > 0.630 ± 0.113
Sensitivity 0.688 > 0.660
Positive Predictive Value 0.663 > 0.637
Total TP 994 > 953
Total TN 1567348 < 1567351
Total FP 646 < 673
Total FP CONTRA 182 > 180
Total FP INCONS 324 < 364
Total FP COMP 140 > 129
Total FN 451 < 492
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 MaxExpect).

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

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 994
Total TN 1567348
Total FP 646
Total FP CONTRA 182
Total FP INCONS 324
Total FP COMP 140
Total FN 451
Total Scores
MCC 0.675
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.665 ± 0.113
Sensitivity 0.688
Positive Predictive Value 0.663
Nr of predictions 24

^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
3A2K_C 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1082 14 3 11 0 10
3ADB_C - 0.98 0.97 1.00 32 1787 0 0 0 0 1
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
3IWN_A 0.86 0.79 0.96 22 1449 1 0 1 0 6
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
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1091 20 4 16 0 20
3KIY_A - 0.70 0.71 0.69 561 1485072 329 73 174 82 225
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
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 MaxExpect - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MaxExpect

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 953
Total TN 1567351
Total FP 673
Total FP CONTRA 180
Total FP INCONS 364
Total FP COMP 129
Total FN 492
Total Scores
MCC 0.648
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.630 ± 0.113
Sensitivity 0.660
Positive Predictive Value 0.637
Nr of predictions 24

^top



2. Individual counts for MaxExpect [ 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
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3ADB_C - 0.86 0.85 0.88 28 1787 4 0 4 0 5
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
3IWN_A 0.80 0.79 0.81 22 1445 6 1 4 1 6
3IYQ_A 0.24 0.33 0.17 17 22342 96 41 40 15 34
3IZ4_A 0.61 0.61 0.62 58 25442 42 14 22 6 37
3J0L_a - 0.39 0.36 0.44 4 402 6 4 1 1 7
3JYV_7 0.48 0.45 0.53 9 1094 9 3 5 1 11
3KIY_A - 0.67 0.68 0.66 531 1485073 336 81 195 60 255
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.69 0.74 0.67 14 714 7 0 7 0 5
3NPB_A 0.77 0.73 0.82 27 2245 10 0 6 4 10
3O58_3 0.40 0.50 0.33 11 4731 36 8 14 14 11
3PDR_A 0.92 0.90 0.94 45 4792 5 1 2 2 5
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.70 0.69 0.71 20 1505 8 3 5 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.58 0.59 0.59 13 1254 9 2 7 0 9
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 41 10 17 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
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.