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 Carnac(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold Carnac(20)
MCC 0.558 > 0.516
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.569 ± 0.212 > 0.407 ± 0.227
Sensitivity 0.544 > 0.345
Positive Predictive Value 0.580 < 0.780
Total TP 112 > 71
Total TN 22994 < 23096
Total FP 129 > 26
Total FP CONTRA 37 > 7
Total FP INCONS 44 > 13
Total FP COMP 48 > 6
Total FN 94 < 135
P-value 1.61358433984e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 112
Total TN 22994
Total FP 129
Total FP CONTRA 37
Total FP INCONS 44
Total FP COMP 48
Total FN 94
Total Scores
MCC 0.558
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.569 ± 0.212
Sensitivity 0.544
Positive Predictive Value 0.580
Nr of predictions 10

^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
3J3D_C 0.79 0.79 0.79 15 949 4 3 1 0 4
3J3E_8 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2722 29 12 8 9 15
3J3F_8 0.36 0.42 0.31 8 4735 32 9 9 14 11
3ZEX_C 0.44 0.41 0.48 12 5349 23 4 9 10 17
4A1C_2 0.26 0.25 0.28 5 4498 26 3 10 13 15
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 Carnac(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 71
Total TN 23096
Total FP 26
Total FP CONTRA 7
Total FP INCONS 13
Total FP COMP 6
Total FN 135
Total Scores
MCC 0.516
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.407 ± 0.227
Sensitivity 0.345
Positive Predictive Value 0.780
Nr of predictions 10

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J20_0 0.69 0.71 0.68 15 1197 8 1 6 1 6
3J3D_C 0.90 0.95 0.86 18 947 3 3 0 0 1
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2742 0 0 0 0 15
3J3F_8 0.61 0.37 1.00 7 4754 2 0 0 2 12
3ZEX_C 0.37 0.21 0.67 6 5365 4 1 2 1 23
4A1C_2 0.42 0.25 0.71 5 4509 3 0 2 1 15
4AOB_A 0.59 0.48 0.74 14 1418 6 2 3 1 15
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 472 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 496 0 0 0 0 15
4FRG_B 0.50 0.25 1.00 6 1196 0 0 0 0 18

^top


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