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 Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for Contrafold & Mastr(20) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Contrafold Mastr(20)
MCC 0.854 > 0.561
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.852 ± 0.034 > 0.572 ± 0.485
Sensitivity 0.759 > 0.459
Positive Predictive Value 0.962 > 0.693
Total TP 101 > 61
Total TN 14628 < 14645
Total FP 7 < 28
Total FP CONTRA 2 < 4
Total FP INCONS 2 < 23
Total FP COMP 3 > 1
Total FN 32 < 72
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Contrafold and Mastr(20). 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 Mastr(20)).

  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 Mastr(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Contrafold and Mastr(20). 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 Mastr(20)).

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 101
Total TN 14628
Total FP 7
Total FP CONTRA 2
Total FP INCONS 2
Total FP COMP 3
Total FN 32
Total Scores
MCC 0.854
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.852 ± 0.034
Sensitivity 0.759
Positive Predictive Value 0.962
Nr of predictions 5

^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_00571 0.87 0.80 0.95 20 3300 1 1 0 0 5
PDB_00828 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2464 1 0 0 1 6
PDB_00829 0.84 0.75 0.95 18 2259 1 0 1 0 6
PDB_01020 0.81 0.74 0.89 17 2259 3 1 1 1 6
PDB_01073 0.86 0.74 1.00 25 4346 1 0 0 1 9

^top



Performance of Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Mastr(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 61
Total TN 14645
Total FP 28
Total FP CONTRA 4
Total FP INCONS 23
Total FP COMP 1
Total FN 72
Total Scores
MCC 0.561
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.572 ± 0.485
Sensitivity 0.459
Positive Predictive Value 0.693
Nr of predictions 5

^top



2. Individual counts for Mastr(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
PDB_00571 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 3302 20 3 16 1 25
PDB_00828 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 6
PDB_00829 0.84 0.71 1.00 17 2261 0 0 0 0 7
PDB_01020 0.81 0.65 1.00 15 2263 0 0 0 0 8
PDB_01073 0.34 0.24 0.50 8 4355 8 1 7 0 26

^top


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