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 Sfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold Sfold
MCC 0.596 > 0.499
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.581 ± 0.145 > 0.521 ± 0.094
Sensitivity 0.588 > 0.506
Positive Predictive Value 0.604 > 0.494
Total TP 686 > 590
Total TN 875970 > 875911
Total FP 562 < 759
Total FP CONTRA 127 < 147
Total FP INCONS 322 < 457
Total FP COMP 113 < 155
Total FN 481 < 577
P-value 7.69757073427e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Sfold).

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

^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 Sfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Sfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 590
Total TN 875911
Total FP 759
Total FP CONTRA 147
Total FP INCONS 457
Total FP COMP 155
Total FN 577
Total Scores
MCC 0.499
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.521 ± 0.094
Sensitivity 0.506
Positive Predictive Value 0.494
Nr of predictions 22

^top



2. Individual counts for Sfold [ 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 0 5 0 11
2M58_A - 0.34 0.25 0.50 3 538 3 1 2 0 9
3J0L_a - 0.55 0.64 0.50 7 397 8 5 2 1 4
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 3 10 1 9
3J20_2 0.57 0.58 0.56 240 421940 241 31 157 53 172
3J3D_C 0.44 0.37 0.54 7 955 6 1 5 0 12
3J3E_8 0.10 0.13 0.08 2 2718 32 6 16 10 13
3J3F_8 0.39 0.47 0.33 9 4734 37 8 10 19 10
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 0.63 0.64 0.64 21 1956 13 4 8 1 12
3ZEX_B - 0.37 0.39 0.35 136 420960 296 65 191 40 210
3ZEX_C 0.41 0.34 0.50 10 5354 27 2 8 17 19
4A1C_2 0.21 0.25 0.19 5 4489 34 8 14 12 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ATO_G - 0.37 0.14 1.00 1 219 0 0 0 0 6
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 5 491 0 0 0 0 10
4FRG_B 0.67 0.58 0.78 14 1184 4 3 1 0 10
4FRN_A 0.71 0.57 0.89 16 1830 2 2 0 0 12
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.