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 Contrafold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold Contrafold
MCC 0.601 > 0.517
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.543 ± 0.159 > 0.464 ± 0.158
Sensitivity 0.483 > 0.438
Positive Predictive Value 0.754 > 0.618
Total TP 193 > 175
Total TN 51821 > 51794
Total FP 81 < 124
Total FP CONTRA 5 < 15
Total FP INCONS 58 < 93
Total FP COMP 18 > 16
Total FN 207 < 225
P-value 2.41358941668e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 193
Total TN 51821
Total FP 81
Total FP CONTRA 5
Total FP INCONS 58
Total FP COMP 18
Total FN 207
Total Scores
MCC 0.601
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.543 ± 0.159
Sensitivity 0.483
Positive Predictive Value 0.754
Nr of predictions 14

^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
2LKR_A - 0.65 0.56 0.76 22 6076 9 0 7 2 17
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1212 13 0 13 0 17
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_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
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
4A1C_2 0.20 0.15 0.28 5 11763 26 0 13 13 28
4A1C_3 0.78 0.63 0.97 34 7105 1 0 1 0 20
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 Contrafold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 175
Total TN 51794
Total FP 124
Total FP CONTRA 15
Total FP INCONS 93
Total FP COMP 16
Total FN 225
Total Scores
MCC 0.517
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.464 ± 0.158
Sensitivity 0.438
Positive Predictive Value 0.618
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 0.45 0.35 0.58 7 1528 5 2 3 0 13
2LKR_A - 0.84 0.79 0.89 31 6070 6 0 4 2 8
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1218 7 0 7 0 17
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.24 0.28 8 6187 26 0 21 5 25
3J0L_g - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 464 1 1 0 0 4
3J0L_a - 0.50 0.44 0.58 7 1116 5 2 3 0 9
3J16_L 0.46 0.40 0.55 12 2753 10 1 9 0 18
3U4M_B - 0.59 0.46 0.77 17 3138 5 0 5 0 20
3UZL_B 0.70 0.54 0.91 20 3548 2 0 2 0 17
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11751 33 5 20 8 28
4A1C_3 0.66 0.57 0.78 31 7100 9 1 8 0 23
4AOB_A 0.44 0.36 0.56 15 4344 13 1 11 1 27
4ENB_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1263 1 1 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1314 1 1 0 0 8

^top


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