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 UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold UNAFold
MCC 0.601 > 0.451
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.543 ± 0.159 > 0.402 ± 0.156
Sensitivity 0.483 > 0.400
Positive Predictive Value 0.754 > 0.516
Total TP 193 > 160
Total TN 51821 > 51767
Total FP 81 < 165
Total FP CONTRA 5 < 19
Total FP INCONS 58 < 131
Total FP COMP 18 > 15
Total FN 207 < 240
P-value 2.8150742666e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^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 UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for UNAFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 160
Total TN 51767
Total FP 165
Total FP CONTRA 19
Total FP INCONS 131
Total FP COMP 15
Total FN 240
Total Scores
MCC 0.451
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.402 ± 0.156
Sensitivity 0.400
Positive Predictive Value 0.516
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.87 1.00 34 6071 1 0 0 1 5
3J0L_7 - 0.48 0.41 0.58 7 1213 5 0 5 0 10
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.24 0.26 8 6185 25 2 21 2 25
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_a - 0.51 0.50 0.53 8 1113 7 3 4 0 8
3J16_L 0.26 0.23 0.30 7 2752 16 1 15 0 23
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3UZL_B 0.48 0.38 0.61 14 3547 9 0 9 0 23
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11745 42 5 26 11 28
4A1C_3 0.70 0.59 0.82 32 7101 7 1 6 0 22
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ENB_A 0.70 0.58 0.85 11 1262 2 1 1 0 8
4ENC_A 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1314 7 1 6 0 14

^top


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