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 0.660 > 0.635
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.661 ± 0.151 > 0.642 ± 0.141
Sensitivity 0.525 > 0.507
Positive Predictive Value 0.835 > 0.798
Total TP 213 > 206
Total TN 63992 > 63989
Total FP 65 < 69
Total FP CONTRA 4 = 4
Total FP INCONS 38 < 48
Total FP COMP 23 > 17
Total FN 193 < 200
P-value 1.5677163434e-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 213
Total TN 63992
Total FP 65
Total FP CONTRA 4
Total FP INCONS 38
Total FP COMP 23
Total FN 193
Total Scores
MCC 0.660
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.661 ± 0.151
Sensitivity 0.525
Positive Predictive Value 0.835
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 0.84 0.70 1.00 21 2829 1 0 0 1 9
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J2L_3 0.79 0.62 1.00 33 7842 2 0 0 2 20
3ZEX_C 0.33 0.25 0.45 13 14167 22 1 15 6 39
3ZEX_D 0.81 0.67 0.97 33 6987 1 0 1 0 16
4A1C_2 0.20 0.15 0.28 5 11763 26 0 13 13 28
4A1C_3 0.78 0.63 0.97 34 7105 1 0 1 0 20
4AOB_A 0.52 0.40 0.68 17 4346 9 1 7 1 25
4ENB_A 0.69 0.47 1.00 9 1266 0 0 0 0 10
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10
4FRG_B 0.71 0.56 0.90 18 3466 2 1 1 0 14

^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 206
Total TN 63989
Total FP 69
Total FP CONTRA 4
Total FP INCONS 48
Total FP COMP 17
Total FN 200
Total Scores
MCC 0.635
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.642 ± 0.141
Sensitivity 0.507
Positive Predictive Value 0.798
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 0.66 0.57 0.77 17 2828 6 0 5 1 13
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J2L_3 0.74 0.58 0.94 31 7842 5 0 2 3 22
3ZEX_C 0.39 0.27 0.56 14 14171 14 2 9 3 38
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.63 0.91 31 6987 3 0 3 0 18
4A1C_2 0.18 0.15 0.21 5 11757 28 0 19 9 28
4A1C_3 0.69 0.57 0.84 31 7103 6 0 6 0 23
4AOB_A 0.56 0.40 0.77 17 4349 6 1 4 1 25
4ENB_A 0.69 0.47 1.00 9 1266 0 0 0 0 10
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10
4FRG_B 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 3465 0 0 0 0 11

^top


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