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 RDfolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Afold RDfolder
MCC 0.549 > 0.456
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.526 ± 0.126 > 0.461 ± 0.129
Sensitivity 0.478 > 0.360
Positive Predictive Value 0.642 > 0.591
Total TP 315 > 237
Total TN 55414 < 55504
Total FP 183 > 170
Total FP CONTRA 14 > 10
Total FP INCONS 162 > 154
Total FP COMP 7 > 6
Total FN 344 < 422
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RDfolder).

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

^top





Performance of Afold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 315
Total TN 55414
Total FP 183
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 162
Total FP COMP 7
Total FN 344
Total Scores
MCC 0.549
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.526 ± 0.126
Sensitivity 0.478
Positive Predictive Value 0.642
Nr of predictions 26

^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_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
2WW9_D - 0.18 0.15 0.24 4 1936 13 0 13 0 22
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
4ENB_A 0.67 0.58 0.79 11 1261 3 1 2 0 8

^top



Performance of RDfolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RDfolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 237
Total TN 55504
Total FP 170
Total FP CONTRA 10
Total FP INCONS 154
Total FP COMP 6
Total FN 422
Total Scores
MCC 0.456
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.461 ± 0.129
Sensitivity 0.360
Positive Predictive Value 0.591
Nr of predictions 26

^top



2. Individual counts for RDfolder [ 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 0.78 1.00 14 847 0 0 0 0 4
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1526 14 2 12 0 20
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 12 5 3 4 7
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
2WW9_D - 0.29 0.12 0.75 3 1949 1 0 1 0 23
2ZZM_B 0.10 0.09 0.13 3 3462 21 1 20 0 29
2ZZN_D 0.84 0.78 0.91 21 2462 2 0 2 0 6
3A2K_C 0.86 0.75 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 7
3A3A_A 0.53 0.41 0.71 15 3634 6 0 6 0 22
3ADB_C - 0.46 0.39 0.54 15 4158 13 0 13 0 23
3AKZ_H 0.48 0.43 0.55 12 2679 11 1 9 1 16
3AM1_B - 0.47 0.43 0.54 15 3212 13 1 12 0 20
3GCA_A - 0.54 0.29 1.00 5 523 0 0 0 0 12
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IWN_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4268 10 0 10 0 33
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1220 5 0 5 0 17
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2830 20 0 20 0 32
3KTW_C - 0.08 0.07 0.12 3 4535 23 0 22 1 40
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NKB_B - 0.37 0.31 0.47 8 1999 9 0 9 0 18
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
4ENB_A 0.43 0.32 0.60 6 1265 4 0 4 0 13

^top


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