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 RNASampler(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of ContextFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(seed) ContextFold
MCC 0.779 > 0.694
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.774 ± 0.092 > 0.693 ± 0.097
Sensitivity 0.659 < 0.680
Positive Predictive Value 0.921 > 0.709
Total TP 442 < 456
Total TN 413762 > 413599
Total FP 105 < 270
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 64
Total FP INCONS 29 < 123
Total FP COMP 67 < 83
Total FN 229 > 215
P-value 2.32677072069e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNASampler(seed) and ContextFold).

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

^top





Performance of RNASampler(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 442
Total TN 413762
Total FP 105
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 29
Total FP COMP 67
Total FN 229
Total Scores
MCC 0.779
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.774 ± 0.092
Sensitivity 0.659
Positive Predictive Value 0.921
Nr of predictions 12

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
RFA_00606 0.44 0.36 0.54 14 21295 18 7 5 6 25
RFA_00620 0.52 0.44 0.63 17 21918 15 2 8 5 22
RFA_00626 0.80 0.64 1.00 56 56560 5 0 0 5 31
RFA_00627 0.77 0.63 0.93 55 56894 8 0 4 4 32
RFA_00628 0.78 0.64 0.95 55 57233 12 0 3 9 31
RFA_00630 0.77 0.66 0.90 57 56890 15 0 6 9 30
RFA_00814 0.87 0.78 0.97 32 25167 6 0 1 5 9
RFA_00815 0.88 0.78 1.00 32 24499 8 0 0 8 9
RFA_00816 0.86 0.76 0.97 31 23188 6 0 1 5 10
RFA_00817 0.86 0.76 0.97 31 21913 1 0 1 0 10
RFA_00818 0.86 0.73 1.00 30 20271 6 0 0 6 11
RFA_00819 0.88 0.78 1.00 32 27934 5 0 0 5 9

^top



Performance of ContextFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 456
Total TN 413599
Total FP 270
Total FP CONTRA 64
Total FP INCONS 123
Total FP COMP 83
Total FN 215
Total Scores
MCC 0.694
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.693 ± 0.097
Sensitivity 0.680
Positive Predictive Value 0.709
Nr of predictions 12

^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_00606 0.45 0.44 0.47 17 21285 23 10 9 4 22
RFA_00620 0.58 0.54 0.62 21 21911 27 3 10 14 18
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_00814 0.94 0.93 0.95 38 25160 18 0 2 16 3
RFA_00815 0.74 0.83 0.65 34 24479 21 13 5 3 7
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

^top


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