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 Contrafold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold Contrafold
MCC 0.596 > 0.537
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.581 ± 0.145 > 0.566 ± 0.125
Sensitivity 0.588 > 0.546
Positive Predictive Value 0.604 > 0.529
Total TP 686 > 637
Total TN 875970 > 875900
Total FP 562 < 724
Total FP CONTRA 127 < 136
Total FP INCONS 322 < 432
Total FP COMP 113 < 156
Total FN 481 < 530
P-value 7.51223576774e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Contrafold).

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

^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 Contrafold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 637
Total TN 875900
Total FP 724
Total FP CONTRA 136
Total FP INCONS 432
Total FP COMP 156
Total FN 530
Total Scores
MCC 0.537
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.566 ± 0.125
Sensitivity 0.546
Positive Predictive Value 0.529
Nr of predictions 22

^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
2LC8_A 0.46 0.39 0.58 7 516 5 3 2 0 11
2M58_A - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 531 13 0 13 0 12
3J0L_a - 0.53 0.55 0.55 6 400 6 3 2 1 5
3J20_0 0.53 0.57 0.50 12 1195 13 3 9 1 9
3J20_2 0.70 0.72 0.69 296 421939 197 27 106 64 116
3J3D_C 0.71 0.79 0.65 15 945 8 3 5 0 4
3J3E_8 0.12 0.13 0.11 2 2724 32 5 11 16 13
3J3F_8 0.35 0.47 0.26 9 4726 44 13 13 18 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 0.98 0.97 1.00 32 1957 1 0 0 1 1
3ZEX_B - 0.26 0.27 0.25 92 420991 302 58 211 33 254
3ZEX_C 0.35 0.34 0.37 10 5347 23 4 13 6 19
4A1C_2 0.21 0.25 0.19 5 4489 33 9 13 11 15
4AOB_A 0.53 0.52 0.56 15 1410 13 3 9 1 14
4ATO_G - 0.52 0.57 0.50 4 212 4 0 4 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 0.73 0.71 0.77 17 1180 5 3 2 0 7
4FRN_A 0.74 0.71 0.77 20 1822 6 1 5 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.