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 NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold NanoFolder
MCC 0.632 > 0.366
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.620 ± 0.138 > 0.390 ± 0.143
Sensitivity 0.498 > 0.376
Positive Predictive Value 0.807 > 0.364
Total TP 155 > 117
Total TN 41576 > 41447
Total FP 53 < 214
Total FP CONTRA 2 < 30
Total FP INCONS 35 < 174
Total FP COMP 16 > 10
Total FN 156 < 194
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 155
Total TN 41576
Total FP 53
Total FP CONTRA 2
Total FP INCONS 35
Total FP COMP 16
Total FN 156
Total Scores
MCC 0.632
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.620 ± 0.138
Sensitivity 0.498
Positive Predictive Value 0.807
Nr of predictions 9

^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
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_3 0.78 0.63 0.97 34 7105 1 0 1 0 20
4A1C_2 0.20 0.15 0.28 5 11763 26 0 13 13 28
4AOB_A 0.52 0.40 0.68 17 4346 9 1 7 1 25
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 117
Total TN 41447
Total FP 214
Total FP CONTRA 30
Total FP INCONS 174
Total FP COMP 10
Total FN 194
Total Scores
MCC 0.366
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.390 ± 0.143
Sensitivity 0.376
Positive Predictive Value 0.364
Nr of predictions 9

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.52 0.55 0.50 11 1518 11 0 11 0 9
2LKR_A - 0.29 0.33 0.25 13 6054 38 8 30 0 26
3J16_L 0.36 0.37 0.37 11 2745 19 3 16 0 19
3U4M_B - 0.61 0.57 0.66 21 3128 11 1 10 0 16
3UZL_B 0.36 0.35 0.38 13 3536 21 3 18 0 24
4A1C_3 0.48 0.46 0.51 25 7091 24 2 22 0 29
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11728 61 12 41 8 33
4AOB_A 0.33 0.29 0.39 12 4340 20 1 18 1 30
4ENC_A 0.57 0.58 0.58 11 1307 9 0 8 1 8

^top


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