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 PPfold(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold PPfold(seed)
MCC 0.728 > 0.716
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.733 ± 0.055 < 0.749 ± 0.077
Sensitivity 0.712 > 0.652
Positive Predictive Value 0.745 < 0.787
Total TP 1337 > 1226
Total TN 1050089 < 1050327
Total FP 553 > 467
Total FP CONTRA 97 > 48
Total FP INCONS 361 > 283
Total FP COMP 95 < 136
Total FN 542 < 653
P-value 1.41743914454e-05

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1337
Total TN 1050089
Total FP 553
Total FP CONTRA 97
Total FP INCONS 361
Total FP COMP 95
Total FN 542
Total Scores
MCC 0.728
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.733 ± 0.055
Sensitivity 0.712
Positive Predictive Value 0.745
Nr of predictions 23

^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_00626 0.80 0.75 0.87 65 56541 19 1 9 9 22
RFA_00627 0.76 0.71 0.81 62 56876 16 3 12 1 25
RFA_00628 0.60 0.56 0.65 48 57217 28 3 23 2 38
RFA_00630 0.62 0.60 0.65 52 56873 35 3 25 7 35
RFA_00805 0.60 0.53 0.68 80 133268 38 3 35 0 70
RFA_00814 0.94 0.93 0.95 38 25160 18 0 2 16 3
RFA_00816 0.67 0.71 0.63 29 23174 22 13 4 5 12
RFA_00817 0.58 0.59 0.59 24 21904 17 5 12 0 17
RFA_00818 0.61 0.66 0.56 27 20253 29 10 11 8 14
RFA_00819 0.96 0.95 0.98 39 27926 15 0 1 14 2
SRP_00079 0.87 0.85 0.89 75 41821 17 0 9 8 13
SRP_00099 0.67 0.66 0.67 63 44756 31 7 24 0 32
SRP_00124 0.90 0.87 0.94 74 37049 9 0 5 4 11
SRP_00182 0.86 0.83 0.88 84 45961 11 2 9 0 17
SRP_00241 0.55 0.59 0.53 48 45965 44 14 29 1 34
SRP_00252 0.66 0.67 0.64 60 49047 36 6 28 2 29
SRP_00253 0.70 0.71 0.68 64 49361 32 6 24 2 26
SRP_00257 0.93 0.90 0.97 97 50940 7 0 3 4 11
SRP_00260 0.68 0.68 0.68 68 47795 34 5 27 2 32
SRP_00328 0.82 0.81 0.82 69 39537 17 4 11 2 16
SRP_00329 0.70 0.69 0.70 59 39819 28 3 22 3 26
SRP_00331 0.68 0.63 0.72 55 37599 24 1 20 3 32
SRP_00340 0.70 0.70 0.70 57 41247 26 8 16 2 25

^top



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1226
Total TN 1050327
Total FP 467
Total FP CONTRA 48
Total FP INCONS 283
Total FP COMP 136
Total FN 653
Total Scores
MCC 0.716
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.749 ± 0.077
Sensitivity 0.652
Positive Predictive Value 0.787
Nr of predictions 23

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
RFA_00626 0.94 0.89 1.00 77 56539 1 0 0 1 10
RFA_00627 0.95 0.91 1.00 79 56874 4 0 0 4 8
RFA_00628 0.95 0.91 1.00 78 57213 2 0 0 2 8
RFA_00630 0.91 0.85 0.97 74 56877 5 0 2 3 13
RFA_00805 0.46 0.21 1.00 32 133354 0 0 0 0 118
RFA_00814 0.94 0.88 1.00 36 25164 2 0 0 2 5
RFA_00816 0.95 0.90 1.00 37 23183 2 0 0 2 4
RFA_00817 0.95 0.90 1.00 37 21908 1 0 0 1 4
RFA_00818 0.94 0.88 1.00 36 20265 2 0 0 2 5
RFA_00819 0.95 0.90 1.00 37 27929 2 0 0 2 4
SRP_00079 0.74 0.69 0.79 61 41828 28 0 16 12 27
SRP_00099 0.60 0.59 0.62 56 44760 40 2 32 6 39
SRP_00124 0.71 0.66 0.76 56 37054 27 3 15 9 29
SRP_00182 0.85 0.78 0.92 79 45970 17 0 7 10 22
SRP_00241 0.53 0.52 0.54 43 45977 49 9 27 13 39
SRP_00252 0.64 0.63 0.64 56 49054 42 5 26 11 33
SRP_00253 0.64 0.62 0.66 56 49370 40 5 24 11 34
SRP_00257 0.51 0.44 0.59 48 50959 36 5 28 3 60
SRP_00260 0.56 0.51 0.61 51 47811 39 5 28 6 49
SRP_00328 0.61 0.56 0.67 48 39549 29 5 19 5 37
SRP_00329 0.72 0.67 0.78 57 39830 26 2 14 10 28
SRP_00331 0.63 0.59 0.69 51 37601 31 2 21 8 36
SRP_00340 0.54 0.50 0.59 41 41258 42 5 24 13 41

^top


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