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 Carnac(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Carnac(seed) ContextFold
MCC 0.582 > 0.504
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.456 ± 0.229 < 0.491 ± 0.115
Sensitivity 0.354 < 0.453
Positive Predictive Value 0.962 > 0.568
Total TP 101 < 129
Total TN 37613 > 37491
Total FP 5 < 101
Total FP CONTRA 3 < 16
Total FP INCONS 1 < 82
Total FP COMP 1 < 3
Total FN 184 > 156
P-value 2.02510705504e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 101
Total TN 37613
Total FP 5
Total FP CONTRA 3
Total FP INCONS 1
Total FP COMP 1
Total FN 184
Total Scores
MCC 0.582
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.456 ± 0.229
Sensitivity 0.354
Positive Predictive Value 0.962
Nr of predictions 13

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
PDB_00005 0.88 0.79 1.00 11 935 0 0 0 0 3
PDB_00716 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2701 0 0 0 0 23
PDB_01092 0.77 0.63 0.94 33 10118 3 1 1 1 19
RFA_00632 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4095 0 0 0 0 28
RFA_00636 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4005 0 0 0 0 28
RFA_00767 0.74 0.56 1.00 10 1881 0 0 0 0 8
RFA_00768 0.74 0.56 1.00 10 1881 0 0 0 0 8
RFA_00769 0.71 0.56 0.91 10 1942 1 1 0 0 8
RFA_00770 0.62 0.39 1.00 7 2009 0 0 0 0 11
RFA_00773 0.71 0.56 0.91 10 1942 1 1 0 0 8
RFA_00779 0.74 0.56 1.00 10 1943 0 0 0 0 8
RFA_00808 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2016 0 0 0 0 16
RFA_00809 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2145 0 0 0 0 16

^top



Performance of ContextFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 129
Total TN 37491
Total FP 101
Total FP CONTRA 16
Total FP INCONS 82
Total FP COMP 3
Total FN 156
Total Scores
MCC 0.504
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.491 ± 0.115
Sensitivity 0.453
Positive Predictive Value 0.568
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
PDB_00005 0.42 0.36 0.50 5 936 5 0 5 0 9
PDB_00716 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2687 14 0 14 0 23
PDB_01092 0.70 0.63 0.77 33 10110 12 1 9 2 19
RFA_00632 0.25 0.25 0.26 7 4068 20 1 19 0 21
RFA_00636 0.52 0.43 0.63 12 3986 7 0 7 0 16
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


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