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 Fold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Fold Afold
MCC 0.547 > 0.545
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.541 ± 0.147 < 0.563 ± 0.132
Sensitivity 0.504 < 0.510
Positive Predictive Value 0.598 > 0.586
Total TP 405 < 410
Total TN 213993 > 213970
Total FP 311 < 329
Total FP CONTRA 43 < 50
Total FP INCONS 229 < 240
Total FP COMP 39 = 39
Total FN 399 > 394
P-value 8.01634185435e-05

^top




Performance plots


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

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Fold 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 Fold and Afold).

^top





Performance of Fold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 405
Total TN 213993
Total FP 311
Total FP CONTRA 43
Total FP INCONS 229
Total FP COMP 39
Total FN 399
Total Scores
MCC 0.547
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.541 ± 0.147
Sensitivity 0.504
Positive Predictive Value 0.598
Nr of predictions 19

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KX8_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
2LKR_A - 0.85 0.79 0.91 31 6071 5 0 3 2 8
3ADB_C - 0.80 0.74 0.88 28 4154 4 0 4 0 10
3AKZ_H 0.84 0.75 0.95 21 2679 1 1 0 0 7
3AM1_B - 0.78 0.71 0.86 25 3211 4 0 4 0 10
3IYQ_A 0.29 0.31 0.27 29 60618 83 20 59 4 65
3IZ4_A 0.53 0.46 0.61 61 70776 44 5 34 5 71
3IZF_C 0.70 0.59 0.82 32 6864 7 1 6 0 22
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1213 12 0 12 0 17
3NDB_M - 0.84 0.74 0.96 45 9133 3 0 2 1 16
3NKB_B - 0.35 0.31 0.42 8 1997 11 0 11 0 18
3NPB_A 0.70 0.61 0.80 28 6986 10 1 6 3 18
3O58_3 0.29 0.31 0.28 11 12363 41 3 26 12 24
3O58_2 0.71 0.71 0.71 27 7222 12 3 8 1 11
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3U4M_B - 0.45 0.35 0.59 13 3138 9 1 8 0 24
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11744 43 5 27 11 28
4ENB_A 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1263 7 1 6 0 14

^top



Performance of Afold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 410
Total TN 213970
Total FP 329
Total FP CONTRA 50
Total FP INCONS 240
Total FP COMP 39
Total FN 394
Total Scores
MCC 0.545
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.563 ± 0.132
Sensitivity 0.510
Positive Predictive Value 0.586
Nr of predictions 19

^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
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
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.87 1.00 34 6071 3 0 0 3 5
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
3IYQ_A 0.31 0.34 0.29 32 60616 82 23 55 4 62
3IZ4_A 0.48 0.45 0.51 59 70760 58 11 46 1 73
3IZF_C 0.66 0.57 0.76 31 6862 10 1 9 0 23
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1210 15 1 14 0 17
3NDB_M - 0.84 0.74 0.96 45 9133 3 0 2 1 16
3NKB_B - 0.59 0.54 0.67 14 1995 7 0 7 0 12
3NPB_A 0.74 0.61 0.90 28 6990 5 0 3 2 18
3O58_3 0.34 0.34 0.34 12 12368 37 2 21 14 23
3O58_2 0.66 0.66 0.66 25 7222 14 4 9 1 13
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11745 43 5 26 12 28
4ENB_A 0.67 0.58 0.79 11 1261 3 1 2 0 8

^top


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