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 RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Contrafold RNASLOpt
MCC 0.517 > 0.443
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.464 ± 0.158 > 0.409 ± 0.141
Sensitivity 0.438 > 0.365
Positive Predictive Value 0.618 > 0.547
Total TP 175 > 146
Total TN 51794 < 51810
Total FP 124 < 130
Total FP CONTRA 15 = 15
Total FP INCONS 93 < 106
Total FP COMP 16 > 9
Total FN 225 < 254
P-value 5.52090997893e-09

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher 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



Performance of RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 146
Total TN 51810
Total FP 130
Total FP CONTRA 15
Total FP INCONS 106
Total FP COMP 9
Total FN 254
Total Scores
MCC 0.443
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.409 ± 0.141
Sensitivity 0.365
Positive Predictive Value 0.547
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.47 0.35 0.64 7 1529 4 0 4 0 13
2LKR_A - 0.68 0.62 0.75 24 6073 9 0 8 1 15
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1212 13 0 13 0 17
3J0L_2 - 0.39 0.36 0.43 12 6188 18 2 14 2 21
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_a - 0.26 0.19 0.38 3 1120 5 1 4 0 13
3J16_L 0.53 0.40 0.71 12 2758 5 0 5 0 18
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3UZL_B 0.48 0.32 0.71 12 3553 5 0 5 0 25
4A1C_2 0.23 0.24 0.22 8 11744 35 8 21 6 25
4A1C_3 0.67 0.52 0.88 28 7108 4 0 4 0 26
4AOB_A 0.26 0.19 0.38 8 4350 13 2 11 0 34
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10

^top


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