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 CentroidFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for ContextFold & CentroidFold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric ContextFold CentroidFold
MCC 0.596 > 0.553
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.581 ± 0.145 > 0.577 ± 0.123
Sensitivity 0.588 > 0.527
Positive Predictive Value 0.604 > 0.582
Total TP 686 > 615
Total TN 875970 < 876048
Total FP 562 > 555
Total FP CONTRA 127 > 105
Total FP INCONS 322 < 337
Total FP COMP 113 = 113
Total FN 481 < 552
P-value 9.34100095224e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of ContextFold and CentroidFold. 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 CentroidFold).

  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 CentroidFold).

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

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 686
Total TN 875970
Total FP 562
Total FP CONTRA 127
Total FP INCONS 322
Total FP COMP 113
Total FN 481
Total Scores
MCC 0.596
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.581 ± 0.145
Sensitivity 0.588
Positive Predictive Value 0.604
Nr of predictions 22

^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
2LC8_A 0.58 0.56 0.63 10 512 6 0 6 0 8
2M58_A - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 530 14 3 11 0 12
3J0L_a - 0.80 0.73 0.89 8 402 2 0 1 1 3
3J20_0 0.95 0.95 0.95 20 1198 2 1 0 1 1
3J20_2 0.89 0.88 0.89 362 421963 88 15 28 45 50
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
3U4M_B - 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1255 0 0 0 0 1
3W1K_J 0.90 0.87 0.93 27 1649 2 1 1 0 4
3W3S_B 0.87 0.85 0.90 28 1958 4 0 3 1 5
3ZEX_B - 0.23 0.23 0.23 81 420993 296 62 216 18 265
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
4ATO_G - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 218 2 1 1 0 7
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
4FRN_A 0.42 0.39 0.46 11 1824 13 6 7 0 17
4JF2_A 0.57 0.50 0.67 12 1064 6 2 4 0 12
4JRC_A - 0.91 0.82 1.00 14 608 0 0 0 0 3

^top



Performance of CentroidFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 615
Total TN 876048
Total FP 555
Total FP CONTRA 105
Total FP INCONS 337
Total FP COMP 113
Total FN 552
Total Scores
MCC 0.553
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.577 ± 0.123
Sensitivity 0.527
Positive Predictive Value 0.582
Nr of predictions 22

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidFold [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.51 0.39 0.70 7 518 3 1 2 0 11
2M58_A - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 538 6 0 6 0 12
3J0L_a - 0.41 0.36 0.50 4 403 5 3 1 1 7
3J20_0 0.54 0.57 0.52 12 1196 12 3 8 1 9
3J20_2 0.70 0.69 0.70 286 421962 177 23 97 57 126
3J3D_C 0.73 0.79 0.68 15 946 7 3 4 0 4
3J3E_8 0.12 0.13 0.13 2 2726 22 4 10 8 13
3J3F_8 0.36 0.47 0.28 9 4729 37 12 11 14 10
3U4M_B - 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1256 5 0 3 2 5
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.95 0.91 1.00 30 1959 1 0 0 1 3
3ZEX_B - 0.27 0.25 0.31 85 421074 210 38 155 17 261
3ZEX_C 0.48 0.34 0.67 10 5359 6 1 4 1 19
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.19 5 4490 29 9 12 8 15
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ATO_G - 0.61 0.57 0.67 4 214 2 0 2 0 3
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 1 0 0 1 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 1 0 0 1 4
4FRG_B 0.75 0.71 0.81 17 1181 4 3 1 0 7
4FRN_A 0.80 0.71 0.91 20 1826 2 1 1 0 8
4JF2_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 19 1063 0 0 0 0 5
4JRC_A - 0.38 0.41 0.39 7 604 11 0 11 0 10

^top


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