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 TurboFold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of ContextFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for TurboFold(20) & ContextFold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric TurboFold(20) ContextFold
MCC 0.596 > 0.558
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.615 ± 0.179 > 0.569 ± 0.212
Sensitivity 0.597 > 0.544
Positive Predictive Value 0.603 > 0.580
Total TP 123 > 112
Total TN 22983 < 22994
Total FP 125 < 129
Total FP CONTRA 30 < 37
Total FP INCONS 51 > 44
Total FP COMP 44 < 48
Total FN 83 < 94
P-value 1.47941000302e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(20) and ContextFold. 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 TurboFold(20) and ContextFold).

  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 TurboFold(20) and ContextFold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(20) and ContextFold. 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 TurboFold(20) and ContextFold).

^top





Performance of TurboFold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for TurboFold(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 123
Total TN 22983
Total FP 125
Total FP CONTRA 30
Total FP INCONS 51
Total FP COMP 44
Total FN 83
Total Scores
MCC 0.596
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.615 ± 0.179
Sensitivity 0.597
Positive Predictive Value 0.603
Nr of predictions 10

^top



2. Individual counts for TurboFold(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 1 5 1 5
3J3D_C 0.90 0.95 0.86 18 947 3 3 0 0 1
3J3E_8 0.27 0.33 0.23 5 2720 28 6 11 11 10
3J3F_8 0.42 0.53 0.34 10 4732 37 9 10 18 9
3ZEX_C 0.49 0.45 0.54 13 5350 15 2 9 4 16
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.21 5 4492 28 6 13 9 15
4AOB_A 0.67 0.59 0.77 17 1415 6 2 3 1 12
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 0.93 0.88 1.00 21 1181 0 0 0 0 3

^top



Performance of ContextFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 112
Total TN 22994
Total FP 129
Total FP CONTRA 37
Total FP INCONS 44
Total FP COMP 48
Total FN 94
Total Scores
MCC 0.558
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.569 ± 0.212
Sensitivity 0.544
Positive Predictive Value 0.580
Nr of predictions 10

^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
3J20_0 0.95 0.95 0.95 20 1198 2 1 0 1 1
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
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
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

^top


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