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 Multilign(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Contrafold Multilign(seed)
MCC 0.525 > 0.485
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.526 ± 0.174 > 0.399 ± 0.173
Sensitivity 0.460 > 0.386
Positive Predictive Value 0.607 < 0.619
Total TP 99 > 83
Total TN 22708 < 22737
Total FP 78 > 52
Total FP CONTRA 8 > 6
Total FP INCONS 56 > 45
Total FP COMP 14 > 1
Total FN 116 < 132
P-value 1.89649746203e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 99
Total TN 22708
Total FP 78
Total FP CONTRA 8
Total FP INCONS 56
Total FP COMP 14
Total FN 116
Total Scores
MCC 0.525
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.526 ± 0.174
Sensitivity 0.460
Positive Predictive Value 0.607
Nr of predictions 13

^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
RFA_00416 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 1470 3 0 0 3 0
RFA_00654 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2400 15 2 13 0 18
RFA_00658 0.59 0.50 0.70 7 1118 5 0 3 2 7
RFA_00664 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 980 11 0 10 1 14
RFA_00708 0.40 0.29 0.57 4 1028 3 0 3 0 10
RFA_00767 0.74 0.56 1.00 10 1881 2 0 0 2 8
RFA_00768 0.45 0.44 0.47 8 1874 9 1 8 0 10
RFA_00769 0.54 0.56 0.53 10 1934 9 4 5 0 8
RFA_00770 0.68 0.56 0.83 10 2004 5 0 2 3 8
RFA_00773 0.71 0.56 0.91 10 1942 4 1 0 3 8
RFA_00779 0.68 0.56 0.83 10 1941 2 0 2 0 8
RFA_00808 0.68 0.56 0.82 9 2005 2 0 2 0 7
RFA_00809 0.40 0.38 0.43 6 2131 8 0 8 0 10

^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.