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 MaxExpect - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold MaxExpect
MCC 0.596 > 0.500
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.581 ± 0.145 > 0.466 ± 0.125
Sensitivity 0.588 > 0.514
Positive Predictive Value 0.604 > 0.487
Total TP 686 > 600
Total TN 875970 > 875872
Total FP 562 < 795
Total FP CONTRA 127 < 154
Total FP INCONS 322 < 479
Total FP COMP 113 < 162
Total FN 481 < 567
P-value 1.07002995419e-07

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 MaxExpect).

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

^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 MaxExpect - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MaxExpect

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 600
Total TN 875872
Total FP 795
Total FP CONTRA 154
Total FP INCONS 479
Total FP COMP 162
Total FN 567
Total Scores
MCC 0.500
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.466 ± 0.125
Sensitivity 0.514
Positive Predictive Value 0.487
Nr of predictions 22

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
2M58_A - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 531 13 0 13 0 12
3J0L_a - 0.39 0.36 0.44 4 402 6 4 1 1 7
3J20_0 0.53 0.57 0.50 12 1195 13 2 10 1 9
3J20_2 0.60 0.63 0.58 258 421926 239 28 156 55 154
3J3D_C 0.47 0.53 0.43 10 945 13 5 8 0 9
3J3E_8 0.10 0.13 0.09 2 2719 32 5 16 11 13
3J3F_8 0.34 0.42 0.29 8 4733 39 10 10 19 11
3U4M_B - 0.58 0.59 0.59 13 1254 9 2 7 0 9
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.97 0.94 1.00 31 1958 1 0 0 1 2
3ZEX_B - 0.37 0.39 0.35 134 420964 302 66 188 48 212
3ZEX_C 0.54 0.45 0.65 13 5354 17 2 5 10 16
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 41 10 17 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ATO_G - 0.45 0.43 0.50 3 214 3 3 0 0 4
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 8 0 7 1 10
4FRG_B 0.29 0.25 0.35 6 1185 11 4 7 0 18
4FRN_A 0.51 0.46 0.57 13 1825 10 5 5 0 15
4JF2_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 19 1063 0 0 0 0 5
4JRC_A - 0.34 0.35 0.35 6 605 11 0 11 0 11

^top


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