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 Murlet(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold Murlet(seed)
MCC 0.491 > 0.403
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.500 ± 0.145 > 0.406 ± 0.109
Sensitivity 0.397 > 0.213
Positive Predictive Value 0.613 < 0.767
Total TP 171 > 92
Total TN 74385 < 74544
Total FP 148 > 32
Total FP CONTRA 22 > 1
Total FP INCONS 86 > 27
Total FP COMP 40 > 4
Total FN 260 < 339
P-value 1.27752322258e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 171
Total TN 74385
Total FP 148
Total FP CONTRA 22
Total FP INCONS 86
Total FP COMP 40
Total FN 260
Total Scores
MCC 0.491
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.500 ± 0.145
Sensitivity 0.397
Positive Predictive Value 0.613
Nr of predictions 13

^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
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7483 29 9 11 9 33
3J3F_8 0.33 0.31 0.37 11 12216 29 3 16 10 25
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_C 0.33 0.25 0.45 13 14167 22 1 15 6 39
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 Murlet(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 92
Total TN 74544
Total FP 32
Total FP CONTRA 1
Total FP INCONS 27
Total FP COMP 4
Total FN 339
Total Scores
MCC 0.403
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.406 ± 0.109
Sensitivity 0.213
Positive Predictive Value 0.767
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for Murlet(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 1528 12 0 12 0 20
3J3E_8 0.25 0.06 1.00 2 7501 2 0 0 2 31
3J3F_8 0.44 0.19 1.00 7 12239 0 0 0 0 29
3W1K_J 0.43 0.21 0.89 8 4177 1 0 1 0 30
3W3S_B 0.41 0.23 0.75 9 4741 3 0 3 0 31
3ZEX_C 0.37 0.13 1.00 7 14189 0 0 0 0 45
4A1C_2 0.46 0.21 1.00 7 11774 0 0 0 0 26
4AOB_A 0.58 0.33 1.00 14 4357 1 0 0 1 28
4ENB_A 0.56 0.32 1.00 6 1269 0 0 0 0 13
4ENC_A 0.56 0.32 1.00 6 1320 0 0 0 0 13
4FRG_B 0.15 0.09 0.25 3 3474 9 0 9 0 29
4FRN_A 0.58 0.39 0.88 14 5135 2 1 1 0 22
4JF2_A 0.51 0.29 0.90 9 2840 2 0 1 1 22

^top


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