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 MXScarna(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric MXScarna(seed) Afold
MCC 0.688 > 0.551
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.678 ± 0.157 > 0.617 ± 0.185
Sensitivity 0.627 > 0.597
Positive Predictive Value 0.758 > 0.514
Total TP 266 > 253
Total TN 67609 > 67468
Total FP 144 < 296
Total FP CONTRA 47 < 100
Total FP INCONS 38 < 139
Total FP COMP 59 > 57
Total FN 158 < 171
P-value 2.89169006118e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 266
Total TN 67609
Total FP 144
Total FP CONTRA 47
Total FP INCONS 38
Total FP COMP 59
Total FN 158
Total Scores
MCC 0.688
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.678 ± 0.157
Sensitivity 0.627
Positive Predictive Value 0.758
Nr of predictions 14

^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 -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 518 12 0 10 2 18
2ZZN_D 0.95 0.91 1.00 20 964 0 0 0 0 2
3A2K_C 0.95 0.91 1.00 20 1088 0 0 0 0 2
3A3A_A 0.84 0.77 0.92 23 1475 4 0 2 2 7
3IVN_B 0.69 0.57 0.87 13 888 2 2 0 0 10
3IYQ_A 0.44 0.47 0.41 24 22382 49 21 13 15 27
3IZ4_A 0.73 0.64 0.82 61 25462 22 12 1 9 34
3JYV_7 0.95 0.90 1.00 18 1093 2 0 0 2 2
3LA5_A 0.82 0.72 0.95 18 935 1 1 0 0 7
3NPB_A 0.76 0.70 0.84 26 2247 10 2 3 5 11
3O58_3 0.54 0.50 0.58 11 4745 20 5 3 12 11
3RKF_A 0.86 0.75 1.00 18 848 0 0 0 0 6
4A1C_2 0.45 0.40 0.50 8 4500 20 4 4 12 12
4ENB_A 0.54 0.40 0.75 6 464 2 0 2 0 9

^top



Performance of Afold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 253
Total TN 67468
Total FP 296
Total FP CONTRA 100
Total FP INCONS 139
Total FP COMP 57
Total FN 171
Total Scores
MCC 0.551
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.617 ± 0.185
Sensitivity 0.597
Positive Predictive Value 0.514
Nr of predictions 14

^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
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
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
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
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.