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 Carnac(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Contrafold Carnac(seed)
MCC 0.582 > 0.582
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.597 ± 0.101 > 0.456 ± 0.229
Sensitivity 0.540 > 0.354
Positive Predictive Value 0.634 < 0.962
Total TP 154 > 101
Total TN 37475 < 37613
Total FP 101 > 5
Total FP CONTRA 12 > 3
Total FP INCONS 77 > 1
Total FP COMP 12 > 1
Total FN 131 < 184
P-value 0.00256031511034

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 154
Total TN 37475
Total FP 101
Total FP CONTRA 12
Total FP INCONS 77
Total FP COMP 12
Total FN 131
Total Scores
MCC 0.582
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.597 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.540
Positive Predictive Value 0.634
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
PDB_00005 0.88 0.79 1.00 11 935 0 0 0 0 3
PDB_00716 0.33 0.30 0.37 7 2682 13 0 12 1 16
PDB_01092 0.70 0.65 0.76 34 10108 14 2 9 3 18
RFA_00632 0.38 0.39 0.37 11 4065 19 0 19 0 17
RFA_00636 0.60 0.64 0.56 18 3973 14 4 10 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 Carnac(seed) - scored lower 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


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