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 UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold UNAFold
MCC 0.596 > 0.472
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.581 ± 0.145 > 0.463 ± 0.106
Sensitivity 0.588 > 0.499
Positive Predictive Value 0.604 > 0.448
Total TP 686 > 582
Total TN 875970 > 875806
Total FP 562 < 875
Total FP CONTRA 127 < 178
Total FP INCONS 322 < 539
Total FP COMP 113 < 158
Total FN 481 < 585
P-value 5.10776592382e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 UNAFold).

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

^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 UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for UNAFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 582
Total TN 875806
Total FP 875
Total FP CONTRA 178
Total FP INCONS 539
Total FP COMP 158
Total FN 585
Total Scores
MCC 0.472
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.463 ± 0.106
Sensitivity 0.499
Positive Predictive Value 0.448
Nr of predictions 22

^top



2. Individual counts for UNAFold [ 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 - 0.60 0.58 0.64 7 533 4 1 3 0 5
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 0.55 240 421931 250 36 161 53 172
3J3D_C 0.33 0.37 0.32 7 946 15 3 12 0 12
3J3E_8 0.15 0.20 0.13 3 2718 32 6 15 11 12
3J3F_8 0.32 0.42 0.25 8 4729 44 12 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 0.61 0.61 0.63 20 1957 13 4 8 1 13
3ZEX_B - 0.36 0.40 0.33 138 420935 317 72 207 38 208
3ZEX_C 0.30 0.34 0.26 10 5336 43 5 23 15 19
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 42 11 17 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 0.48 0.46 0.52 13 1823 12 2 10 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.