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 TurboFold(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold TurboFold(20)
MCC 0.781 > 0.755
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.762 ± 0.160 > 0.746 ± 0.151
Sensitivity 0.731 > 0.717
Positive Predictive Value 0.840 > 0.800
Total TP 204 > 200
Total TN 24164 > 24157
Total FP 74 < 75
Total FP CONTRA 13 = 13
Total FP INCONS 26 < 37
Total FP COMP 35 > 25
Total FN 75 < 79
P-value 1.42300079339e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of ContextFold and TurboFold(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 ContextFold and TurboFold(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 ContextFold and TurboFold(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for ContextFold and TurboFold(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 ContextFold and TurboFold(20)).

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 204
Total TN 24164
Total FP 74
Total FP CONTRA 13
Total FP INCONS 26
Total FP COMP 35
Total FN 75
Total Scores
MCC 0.781
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.762 ± 0.160
Sensitivity 0.731
Positive Predictive Value 0.840
Nr of predictions 11

^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
3J20_0 0.95 0.95 0.95 20 1198 2 1 0 1 1
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 1 0 0 1 0
3J2L_3 0.95 0.91 1.00 31 2989 4 0 0 4 3
3ZEX_C 0.44 0.41 0.48 12 5349 23 4 9 10 17
3ZEX_D 0.92 0.86 1.00 30 2766 4 0 0 4 5
4A1C_2 0.26 0.25 0.28 5 4498 26 3 10 13 15
4A1C_3 0.96 0.92 1.00 34 2729 1 0 0 1 3
4AOB_A 0.62 0.59 0.68 17 1412 9 2 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 9 463 0 0 0 0 6
4ENC_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 9 486 1 1 0 0 6
4FRG_B 0.77 0.71 0.85 17 1182 3 2 1 0 7

^top



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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 200
Total TN 24157
Total FP 75
Total FP CONTRA 13
Total FP INCONS 37
Total FP COMP 25
Total FN 79
Total Scores
MCC 0.755
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.746 ± 0.151
Sensitivity 0.717
Positive Predictive Value 0.800
Nr of predictions 11

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 1 5 1 5
3J20_1 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1092 1 0 0 1 0
3J2L_3 0.92 0.91 0.94 31 2987 5 1 1 3 3
3ZEX_C 0.49 0.45 0.54 13 5350 15 2 9 4 16
3ZEX_D 0.86 0.80 0.93 28 2766 6 0 2 4 7
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.21 5 4492 28 6 13 9 15
4A1C_3 0.86 0.84 0.89 31 2728 6 0 4 2 6
4AOB_A 0.67 0.59 0.77 17 1415 6 2 3 1 12
4ENB_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 9 463 0 0 0 0 6
4ENC_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 9 486 1 1 0 0 6
4FRG_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 21 1181 0 0 0 0 3

^top


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