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 Afold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold Afold
MCC 0.801 > 0.764
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.821 ± 0.143 > 0.812 ± 0.151
Sensitivity 0.774 < 0.781
Positive Predictive Value 0.837 > 0.755
Total TP 205 < 207
Total TN 13799 > 13770
Total FP 69 < 108
Total FP CONTRA 6 < 16
Total FP INCONS 34 < 51
Total FP COMP 29 < 41
Total FN 60 > 58
P-value 5.86050763602e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for ContextFold and Afold. 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 Afold).

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 205
Total TN 13799
Total FP 69
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 34
Total FP COMP 29
Total FN 60
Total Scores
MCC 0.801
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.821 ± 0.143
Sensitivity 0.774
Positive Predictive Value 0.837
Nr of predictions 18

^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
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 0 0 0 0 0
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 0 0 0 0 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LJJ_A - 0.92 0.86 1.00 6 124 3 0 0 3 1
2LK3_A - 0.94 0.89 1.00 8 92 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.70 0.66 0.76 19 2415 12 0 6 6 10
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 1 0 0 1 0
2LWK_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 196 1 0 0 1 0
3J0L_1 - 0.75 0.69 0.82 9 473 5 0 2 3 4
3J0L_h - 0.95 0.91 1.00 29 2111 2 0 0 2 3
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 506 13 3 10 0 10
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1255 0 0 0 0 1
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_2 0.26 0.25 0.28 5 4498 26 3 10 13 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4ENB_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 9 463 0 0 0 0 6

^top



Performance of Afold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 207
Total TN 13770
Total FP 108
Total FP CONTRA 16
Total FP INCONS 51
Total FP COMP 41
Total FN 58
Total Scores
MCC 0.764
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.812 ± 0.151
Sensitivity 0.781
Positive Predictive Value 0.755
Nr of predictions 18

^top



2. Individual counts for Afold [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 6 0 5 1 7
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 0 0 0 0 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 123 3 0 0 3 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 29 2411 8 0 0 8 0
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2LWK_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 197 2 0 1 1 2
3J0L_1 - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 473 5 0 1 4 3
3J0L_h - 0.87 0.81 0.93 26 2112 5 1 1 3 6
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 504 15 1 14 0 10
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 1 0 0 1 0
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 43 11 17 15 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4ENB_A 0.81 0.73 0.92 11 460 3 0 1 2 4

^top


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