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 MXScarna(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold MXScarna(seed)
MCC 0.669 > 0.632
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.615 ± 0.100 > 0.572 ± 0.093
Sensitivity 0.551 > 0.525
Positive Predictive Value 0.814 > 0.763
Total TP 839 > 800
Total TN 1248979 > 1248961
Total FP 240 < 304
Total FP CONTRA 30 < 34
Total FP INCONS 162 < 215
Total FP COMP 48 < 55
Total FN 685 < 724
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of ContextFold and MXScarna(seed). 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 MXScarna(seed)).

  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 MXScarna(seed)).

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

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 839
Total TN 1248979
Total FP 240
Total FP CONTRA 30
Total FP INCONS 162
Total FP COMP 48
Total FN 685
Total Scores
MCC 0.669
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.615 ± 0.100
Sensitivity 0.551
Positive Predictive Value 0.814
Nr of predictions 25

^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 0.55 0.50 0.63 10 1524 6 0 6 0 10
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3J20_0 0.84 0.70 1.00 21 2829 1 0 0 1 9
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J20_2 0.73 0.61 0.87 387 1116318 63 8 52 3 246
3J2L_3 0.79 0.62 1.00 33 7842 2 0 0 2 20
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7483 29 9 11 9 33
3J3E_7 0.72 0.56 0.94 30 7108 2 0 2 0 24
3J3F_8 0.33 0.31 0.37 11 12216 29 3 16 10 25
3J3F_7 0.81 0.68 0.97 34 7225 1 0 1 0 16
3J3V_B 0.76 0.58 1.00 33 6988 0 0 0 0 24
3UZL_B 0.72 0.54 0.95 20 3549 1 0 1 0 17
3W1K_J 0.81 0.71 0.93 27 4157 2 1 1 0 11
3W3S_B 0.79 0.70 0.90 28 4722 4 0 3 1 12
3ZEX_D 0.81 0.67 0.97 33 6987 1 0 1 0 16
3ZEX_C 0.33 0.25 0.45 13 14167 22 1 15 6 39
3ZND_W 0.21 0.22 0.22 5 2980 20 0 18 2 18
4A1C_3 0.78 0.63 0.97 34 7105 1 0 1 0 20
4A1C_2 0.20 0.15 0.28 5 11763 26 0 13 13 28
4AOB_A 0.52 0.40 0.68 17 4346 9 1 7 1 25
4ENB_A 0.69 0.47 1.00 9 1266 0 0 0 0 10
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10
4FRG_B 0.71 0.56 0.90 18 3466 2 1 1 0 14
4FRN_A 0.40 0.33 0.50 12 5127 12 3 9 0 24
4JF2_A 0.50 0.39 0.67 12 2832 6 2 4 0 19

^top



Performance of MXScarna(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MXScarna(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 800
Total TN 1248961
Total FP 304
Total FP CONTRA 34
Total FP INCONS 215
Total FP COMP 55
Total FN 724
Total Scores
MCC 0.632
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.572 ± 0.093
Sensitivity 0.525
Positive Predictive Value 0.763
Nr of predictions 25

^top



2. Individual counts for MXScarna(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1530 12 0 10 2 20
3J16_L 0.82 0.67 1.00 20 2755 0 0 0 0 10
3J20_0 0.79 0.63 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 11
3J20_1 0.93 0.87 1.00 20 2906 0 0 0 0 3
3J20_2 0.67 0.58 0.77 366 1116289 118 14 96 8 267
3J2L_3 0.60 0.49 0.74 26 7840 11 1 8 2 27
3J3E_8 0.16 0.09 0.27 3 7492 14 1 7 6 30
3J3E_7 0.70 0.59 0.82 32 7101 7 2 5 0 22
3J3F_8 0.45 0.33 0.60 12 12226 18 1 7 10 24
3J3F_7 0.78 0.70 0.88 35 7220 6 2 3 1 15
3J3V_B 0.56 0.46 0.70 26 6984 11 1 10 0 31
3UZL_B 0.66 0.49 0.90 18 3550 2 1 1 0 19
3W1K_J 0.84 0.76 0.94 29 4155 2 1 1 0 9
3W3S_B 0.69 0.60 0.80 24 4723 6 0 6 0 16
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.69 0.83 34 6980 7 1 6 0 15
3ZEX_C 0.32 0.19 0.53 10 14177 20 2 7 11 42
3ZND_W 0.44 0.39 0.50 9 2985 11 0 9 2 14
4A1C_3 0.75 0.65 0.88 35 7100 5 1 4 0 19
4A1C_2 0.35 0.24 0.50 8 11765 20 1 7 12 25
4AOB_A 0.66 0.55 0.79 23 4342 7 0 6 1 19
4ENB_A 0.48 0.32 0.75 6 1267 2 0 2 0 13
4ENC_A 0.43 0.32 0.60 6 1316 4 1 3 0 13
4FRG_B 0.41 0.31 0.56 10 3468 8 2 6 0 22
4FRN_A 0.62 0.53 0.73 19 5125 7 2 5 0 17
4JF2_A 0.44 0.32 0.63 10 2834 6 0 6 0 21

^top


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