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 McQFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold McQFold
MCC 0.596 > 0.446
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.581 ± 0.145 < 0.590 ± 0.153
Sensitivity 0.588 > 0.462
Positive Predictive Value 0.604 > 0.432
Total TP 686 > 539
Total TN 875970 > 875857
Total FP 562 < 816
Total FP CONTRA 127 < 176
Total FP INCONS 322 < 533
Total FP COMP 113 > 107
Total FN 481 < 628
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 McQFold).

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

^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 McQFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 539
Total TN 875857
Total FP 816
Total FP CONTRA 176
Total FP INCONS 533
Total FP COMP 107
Total FN 628
Total Scores
MCC 0.446
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.590 ± 0.153
Sensitivity 0.462
Positive Predictive Value 0.432
Nr of predictions 22

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 1 4 0 7
2M58_A - 0.60 0.58 0.64 7 533 5 1 3 1 5
3J0L_a - 0.21 0.18 0.29 2 404 6 3 2 1 9
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 3 3 1 5
3J20_2 0.55 0.56 0.55 231 421948 234 41 148 45 181
3J3D_C 0.90 0.95 0.86 18 947 3 3 0 0 1
3J3E_8 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2718 36 8 16 12 15
3J3F_8 0.31 0.42 0.23 8 4726 41 12 15 14 11
3U4M_B - 0.95 0.91 1.00 20 1256 2 0 0 2 2
3W1K_J 0.86 0.77 0.96 24 1653 1 1 0 0 7
3W3S_B 0.49 0.45 0.54 15 1961 14 1 12 1 18
3ZEX_B - 0.12 0.14 0.12 47 420944 379 78 283 18 299
3ZEX_C 0.33 0.34 0.32 10 5343 25 4 17 4 19
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.16 5 4484 33 11 16 6 15
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ATO_G - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 215 5 0 5 0 7
4ENB_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 457 0 0 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0
4FRG_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 21 1181 0 0 0 0 3
4FRN_A 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 1827 1 1 0 0 8
4JF2_A 0.92 1.00 0.86 24 1054 5 4 0 1 0
4JRC_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 16 606 0 0 0 0 1

^top


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