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 Multilign(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for ContextFold & Multilign(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric ContextFold Multilign(seed)
MCC 0.568 > 0.485
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.545 ± 0.175 > 0.399 ± 0.173
Sensitivity 0.512 > 0.386
Positive Predictive Value 0.640 > 0.619
Total TP 110 > 83
Total TN 22699 < 22737
Total FP 66 > 52
Total FP CONTRA 15 > 6
Total FP INCONS 47 > 45
Total FP COMP 4 > 1
Total FN 105 < 132
P-value 1.93248927742e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of ContextFold and Multilign(seed). 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 Multilign(seed)).

  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 ContextFold and Multilign(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for ContextFold and Multilign(seed). 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 Multilign(seed)).

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 110
Total TN 22699
Total FP 66
Total FP CONTRA 15
Total FP INCONS 47
Total FP COMP 4
Total FN 105
Total Scores
MCC 0.568
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.545 ± 0.175
Sensitivity 0.512
Positive Predictive Value 0.640
Nr of predictions 13

^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
RFA_00416 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 1470 1 0 0 1 0
RFA_00654 0.71 0.67 0.75 12 2399 5 1 3 1 6
RFA_00658 0.89 0.79 1.00 11 1117 0 0 0 0 3
RFA_00664 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 980 11 0 10 1 14
RFA_00708 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1029 6 0 6 0 14
RFA_00767 0.59 0.56 0.63 10 1875 6 3 3 0 8
RFA_00768 0.61 0.56 0.67 10 1876 5 2 3 0 8
RFA_00769 0.55 0.56 0.56 10 1935 8 4 4 0 8
RFA_00770 0.61 0.56 0.67 10 2001 5 2 3 0 8
RFA_00773 0.59 0.56 0.63 10 1937 6 1 5 0 8
RFA_00779 0.61 0.56 0.67 10 1938 5 2 3 0 8
RFA_00808 0.58 0.44 0.78 7 2007 2 0 2 0 9
RFA_00809 0.39 0.31 0.50 5 2135 6 0 5 1 11

^top



Performance of Multilign(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Multilign(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 83
Total TN 22737
Total FP 52
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 45
Total FP COMP 1
Total FN 132
Total Scores
MCC 0.485
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.399 ± 0.173
Sensitivity 0.386
Positive Predictive Value 0.619
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for Multilign(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
RFA_00416 0.57 0.53 0.62 8 1472 6 1 4 1 7
RFA_00654 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2414 1 0 1 0 18
RFA_00658 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1128 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00664 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 990 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00708 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1035 0 0 0 0 14
RFA_00767 0.63 0.56 0.71 10 1877 4 0 4 0 8
RFA_00768 0.61 0.56 0.67 10 1876 5 0 5 0 8
RFA_00769 0.55 0.56 0.56 10 1935 8 3 5 0 8
RFA_00770 0.68 0.56 0.83 10 2004 2 0 2 0 8
RFA_00773 0.59 0.56 0.63 10 1937 6 1 5 0 8
RFA_00779 0.61 0.56 0.67 10 1938 5 0 5 0 8
RFA_00808 0.60 0.56 0.64 9 2002 5 0 5 0 7
RFA_00809 0.37 0.38 0.38 6 2129 10 1 9 0 10

^top


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