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 Carnac(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Carnac(20) Afold
MCC 0.664 > 0.565
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.642 ± 0.214 > 0.593 ± 0.238
Sensitivity 0.465 < 0.591
Positive Predictive Value 0.953 > 0.547
Total TP 141 < 179
Total TN 42360 > 42181
Total FP 14 < 190
Total FP CONTRA 3 < 51
Total FP INCONS 4 < 97
Total FP COMP 7 < 42
Total FN 162 > 124
P-value 9.64686604905e-09

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Carnac(20) 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 Carnac(20) and Afold).

  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 Carnac(20) and Afold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Carnac(20) 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 Carnac(20) and Afold).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 141
Total TN 42360
Total FP 14
Total FP CONTRA 3
Total FP INCONS 4
Total FP COMP 7
Total FN 162
Total Scores
MCC 0.664
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.642 ± 0.214
Sensitivity 0.465
Positive Predictive Value 0.953
Nr of predictions 10

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3A2K_C 0.88 0.77 1.00 17 1091 0 0 0 0 5
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.31 0.88 29 25503 4 3 1 0 66
3JYV_7 0.81 0.70 0.93 14 1096 3 0 1 2 6
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.46 0.22 1.00 8 2270 3 0 0 3 29
3O58_3 0.60 0.36 1.00 8 4756 1 0 0 1 14
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
4A1C_2 0.42 0.25 0.71 5 4509 3 0 2 1 15
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 472 0 0 0 0 15

^top



Performance of Afold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 179
Total TN 42181
Total FP 190
Total FP CONTRA 51
Total FP INCONS 97
Total FP COMP 42
Total FN 124
Total Scores
MCC 0.565
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.593 ± 0.238
Sensitivity 0.591
Positive Predictive Value 0.547
Nr of predictions 10

^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
3A2K_C 0.46 0.50 0.44 11 1083 14 3 11 0 11
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
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
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
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
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


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