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 RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold RNAfold
MCC 0.596 > 0.474
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.581 ± 0.145 > 0.476 ± 0.096
Sensitivity 0.588 > 0.503
Positive Predictive Value 0.604 > 0.448
Total TP 686 > 587
Total TN 875970 > 875795
Total FP 562 < 883
Total FP CONTRA 127 < 178
Total FP INCONS 322 < 545
Total FP COMP 113 < 160
Total FN 481 < 580
P-value 5.6410608252e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNAfold).

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

^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 RNAfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 587
Total TN 875795
Total FP 883
Total FP CONTRA 178
Total FP INCONS 545
Total FP COMP 160
Total FN 580
Total Scores
MCC 0.474
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.476 ± 0.096
Sensitivity 0.503
Positive Predictive Value 0.448
Nr of predictions 22

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAfold [ 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 0 5 0 7
2M58_A - 0.40 0.42 0.42 5 532 7 1 6 0 7
3J0L_a - 0.18 0.18 0.22 2 402 8 3 4 1 9
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 3 10 1 9
3J20_2 0.56 0.58 0.54 238 421930 251 36 164 51 174
3J3D_C 0.33 0.37 0.32 7 946 15 3 12 0 12
3J3E_8 0.25 0.33 0.20 5 2717 31 7 13 11 10
3J3F_8 0.33 0.42 0.27 8 4731 42 10 12 20 11
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3W1K_J 0.97 0.97 0.97 30 1647 1 1 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.60 0.61 0.61 20 1956 14 4 9 1 13
3ZEX_B - 0.35 0.39 0.32 136 420925 333 77 214 42 210
3ZEX_C 0.30 0.34 0.26 10 5336 43 5 23 15 19
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4482 43 11 18 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ATO_G - 0.38 0.43 0.38 3 212 5 5 0 0 4
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 485 7 0 6 1 10
4FRG_B 0.36 0.38 0.38 9 1178 15 2 13 0 15
4FRN_A 0.59 0.57 0.62 16 1822 10 2 8 0 12
4JF2_A 0.86 0.79 0.95 19 1062 1 1 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.