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 Alterna - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Afold Alterna
MCC 0.546 > 0.518
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.520 ± 0.131 < 0.520 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.475 > 0.447
Positive Predictive Value 0.637 > 0.612
Total TP 304 > 286
Total TN 54153 < 54163
Total FP 180 < 188
Total FP CONTRA 13 < 18
Total FP INCONS 160 < 163
Total FP COMP 7 = 7
Total FN 336 < 354
P-value 5.50294594097e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Alterna).

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

^top





Performance of Afold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 304
Total TN 54153
Total FP 180
Total FP CONTRA 13
Total FP INCONS 160
Total FP COMP 7
Total FN 336
Total Scores
MCC 0.546
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.520 ± 0.131
Sensitivity 0.475
Positive Predictive Value 0.637
Nr of predictions 25

^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
2KDQ_B 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 396 0 0 0 0 1
2KFC_A - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 622 8 0 8 0 20
2KX8_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
2LC8_A 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 6 0 5 1 9
2RP0_A - 0.58 0.42 0.83 5 345 1 0 1 0 7
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 13 5 3 5 7
2WW9_D - 0.18 0.15 0.24 4 1936 13 0 13 0 22
2WW9_E - 0.47 0.29 0.80 4 556 1 0 1 0 10
2WW9_F - 0.59 0.60 0.60 6 290 4 0 4 0 4
2ZZM_B 0.21 0.19 0.25 6 3462 18 0 18 0 26
2ZZN_D 0.80 0.74 0.87 20 2462 3 0 3 0 7
3A2K_C 0.41 0.39 0.44 11 2901 14 2 12 0 17
3A3A_A 0.84 0.70 1.00 26 3629 0 0 0 0 11
3ADB_C - 0.78 0.74 0.82 28 4152 6 0 6 0 10
3AKZ_H 0.16 0.14 0.19 4 2680 17 2 15 0 24
3AM1_B - 0.72 0.66 0.79 23 3211 6 0 6 0 12
3GCA_A - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 519 9 0 9 0 17
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IWN_A 0.62 0.58 0.68 19 4250 9 0 9 0 14
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1210 15 1 14 0 17
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2827 23 1 22 0 32
3KTW_C - 0.71 0.63 0.82 27 4527 7 2 4 1 16
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NKB_B - 0.59 0.54 0.67 14 1995 7 0 7 0 12
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14

^top



Performance of Alterna - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Alterna

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 286
Total TN 54163
Total FP 188
Total FP CONTRA 18
Total FP INCONS 163
Total FP COMP 7
Total FN 354
Total Scores
MCC 0.518
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.520 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.447
Positive Predictive Value 0.612
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 396 0 0 0 0 1
2KFC_A - 0.49 0.25 1.00 5 625 0 0 0 0 15
2KX8_A 0.88 0.83 0.94 15 845 1 0 1 0 3
2LC8_A 0.46 0.40 0.53 8 1525 7 0 7 0 12
2RP0_A - 0.64 0.42 1.00 5 346 0 0 0 0 7
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 13 5 3 5 7
2WW9_D - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1936 17 1 16 0 26
2WW9_E - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 556 5 0 5 0 14
2WW9_F - 0.71 0.60 0.86 6 293 1 0 1 0 4
2ZZM_B 0.10 0.09 0.13 3 3463 20 2 18 0 29
2ZZN_D 0.84 0.78 0.91 21 2462 2 0 2 0 6
3A2K_C 0.44 0.43 0.46 12 2900 14 2 12 0 16
3A3A_A 0.84 0.70 1.00 26 3629 0 0 0 0 11
3ADB_C - 0.59 0.55 0.64 21 4153 12 0 12 0 17
3AKZ_H 0.40 0.39 0.42 11 2675 15 4 11 0 17
3AM1_B - 0.61 0.57 0.67 20 3210 10 1 9 0 15
3GCA_A - 0.54 0.29 1.00 5 523 0 0 0 0 12
3IVN_B 0.74 0.61 0.90 19 2325 2 1 1 0 12
3IWN_A 0.75 0.67 0.85 22 4252 5 0 4 1 11
3J0L_7 - 0.26 0.24 0.31 4 1212 9 0 9 0 13
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2828 22 0 22 0 32
3KTW_C - 0.39 0.35 0.45 15 4527 19 1 17 1 28
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NKB_B - 0.35 0.31 0.42 8 1997 11 0 11 0 18
3RKF_A 0.69 0.56 0.86 19 2189 3 1 2 0 15

^top


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