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 Afold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Afold UNAFold
MCC 0.493 > 0.485
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.559 ± 0.134 < 0.595 ± 0.132
Sensitivity 0.537 > 0.524
Positive Predictive Value 0.453 > 0.450
Total TP 1397 > 1363
Total TN 4970891 < 4970947
Total FP 2083 > 2054
Total FP CONTRA 525 > 505
Total FP INCONS 1163 > 1161
Total FP COMP 395 > 388
Total FN 1206 < 1240
P-value 5.12827206146e-07

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of Afold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1397
Total TN 4970891
Total FP 2083
Total FP CONTRA 525
Total FP INCONS 1163
Total FP COMP 395
Total FN 1206
Total Scores
MCC 0.493
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.559 ± 0.134
Sensitivity 0.537
Positive Predictive Value 0.453
Nr of predictions 24

^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
2KFC_A - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 228 8 1 7 0 8
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 6 0 5 1 7
2RP0_A - 0.76 0.71 0.83 5 110 1 0 1 0 2
2WDL_A - 0.52 0.54 0.50 426 1444477 465 78 341 46 362
2ZZN_D 0.91 0.91 0.91 20 962 3 2 0 1 2
3A2K_C 0.46 0.50 0.44 11 1083 14 3 11 0 11
3A3A_A 0.93 0.87 1.00 26 1474 0 0 0 0 4
3ADB_C - 0.85 0.85 0.85 28 1786 6 0 5 1 5
3GCA_A - -0.04 0.00 0.00 0 151 9 1 6 2 7
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IWN_A 0.67 0.68 0.68 19 1444 9 1 8 0 9
3IYQ_A 0.23 0.33 0.17 17 22339 97 47 37 13 34
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.57 0.48 54 25423 63 27 32 4 41
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1088 23 4 19 0 20
3JYX_5 - 0.34 0.44 0.27 210 1968232 793 260 300 233 271
3KIY_A - 0.53 0.55 0.51 430 1485031 475 81 338 56 356
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.69 0.74 0.67 14 714 7 0 7 0 5
3NPB_A 0.82 0.73 0.93 27 2249 6 0 2 4 10
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 38 6 15 17 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 43 11 17 15 15
4ENB_A 0.81 0.73 0.92 11 460 3 0 1 2 4

^top



Performance of UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for UNAFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 1363
Total TN 4970947
Total FP 2054
Total FP CONTRA 505
Total FP INCONS 1161
Total FP COMP 388
Total FN 1240
Total Scores
MCC 0.485
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.595 ± 0.132
Sensitivity 0.524
Positive Predictive Value 0.450
Nr of predictions 24

^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
2KFC_A - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 229 7 1 6 0 8
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
2RP0_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 111 0 0 0 0 2
2WDL_A - 0.49 0.50 0.47 396 1444479 488 87 360 41 392
2ZZN_D 0.93 0.95 0.91 21 961 2 2 0 0 1
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3A3A_A 0.97 0.93 1.00 28 1472 0 0 0 0 2
3ADB_C - 0.86 0.85 0.88 28 1787 4 0 4 0 5
3GCA_A - 0.84 0.71 1.00 5 153 0 0 0 0 2
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IWN_A 0.80 0.79 0.81 22 1445 6 1 4 1 6
3IYQ_A 0.23 0.33 0.17 17 22339 96 46 38 12 34
3IZ4_A 0.58 0.60 0.57 57 25436 53 12 31 10 38
3JYV_7 0.24 0.25 0.25 5 1091 16 7 8 1 15
3JYX_5 - 0.36 0.45 0.29 216 1968262 763 245 279 239 265
3KIY_A - 0.50 0.52 0.48 410 1485034 486 79 357 50 376
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NKB_B - 0.69 0.74 0.67 14 714 7 0 7 0 5
3NPB_A 0.85 0.78 0.94 29 2247 6 0 2 4 8
3O58_3 0.42 0.50 0.35 11 4733 34 5 15 14 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 42 11 17 14 15
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4

^top


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