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 Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold Afold
MCC 0.735 > 0.318
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.754 ± 0.112 > 0.345 ± 0.125
Sensitivity 0.722 > 0.304
Positive Predictive Value 0.755 > 0.348
Total TP 418 > 176
Total TN 53477 < 53525
Total FP 150 < 349
Total FP CONTRA 21 < 25
Total FP INCONS 115 < 305
Total FP COMP 14 < 19
Total FN 161 < 403
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 418
Total TN 53477
Total FP 150
Total FP CONTRA 21
Total FP INCONS 115
Total FP COMP 14
Total FN 161
Total Scores
MCC 0.735
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.754 ± 0.112
Sensitivity 0.722
Positive Predictive Value 0.755
Nr of predictions 28

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
PDB_00018 - 0.90 0.90 0.90 18 1015 2 2 0 0 2
PDB_00020 - 0.79 0.75 0.83 15 762 3 0 3 0 5
PDB_00056 - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 616 0 0 0 0 2
PDB_00123 - 0.94 0.94 0.94 34 4150 2 2 0 0 2
PDB_00138 - 0.94 1.00 0.89 8 369 1 1 0 0 0
PDB_00209 - 0.96 1.00 0.92 11 549 1 1 0 0 0
PDB_00243 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 0
PDB_00352 - 0.90 0.95 0.86 18 1204 3 2 1 0 1
PDB_00571 0.87 0.80 0.95 20 3300 1 1 0 0 5
PDB_00713 - 0.24 0.24 0.26 5 1997 14 0 14 0 16
PDB_00716 0.68 0.70 0.67 16 2677 9 0 8 1 7
PDB_00828 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 6
PDB_00829 0.43 0.42 0.45 10 2256 12 0 12 0 14
PDB_00874 - 0.21 0.20 0.25 4 930 12 0 12 0 16
PDB_00886 - 0.34 0.35 0.35 14 4146 26 0 26 0 26
PDB_01009 0.90 0.90 0.90 19 2464 5 0 2 3 2
PDB_01040 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1108 0 0 0 0 0
PDB_01260 - 0.41 0.36 0.47 9 1811 10 0 10 0 16
PDB_01281 - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 366 12 0 12 0 14
PDB_01299 - 0.90 0.87 0.93 13 889 1 1 0 0 2
RFA_00632 0.54 0.54 0.56 15 4068 12 2 10 0 13
RFA_00636 0.78 0.82 0.74 23 3974 8 7 1 0 5
RFA_00767 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 1873 4 0 0 4 0
RFA_00768 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 1873 0 0 0 0 0
RFA_00769 0.97 1.00 0.95 18 1934 1 1 0 0 0
RFA_00770 0.88 0.78 1.00 14 2002 3 0 0 3 4
RFA_00773 0.97 1.00 0.95 18 1934 4 1 0 3 0
RFA_00809 0.79 0.81 0.76 13 2128 4 0 4 0 3

^top



Performance of Afold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 176
Total TN 53525
Total FP 349
Total FP CONTRA 25
Total FP INCONS 305
Total FP COMP 19
Total FN 403
Total Scores
MCC 0.318
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.345 ± 0.125
Sensitivity 0.304
Positive Predictive Value 0.348
Nr of predictions 28

^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
PDB_00018 - 0.20 0.20 0.22 4 1017 14 2 12 0 16
PDB_00020 - 0.38 0.35 0.44 7 764 9 0 9 0 13
PDB_00056 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 618 12 0 12 0 16
PDB_00123 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4150 36 0 36 0 36
PDB_00138 - 0.72 0.63 0.83 5 372 1 0 1 0 3
PDB_00209 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 551 10 2 8 0 11
PDB_00243 - 0.67 0.58 0.78 7 621 3 0 2 1 5
PDB_00352 - 0.89 0.79 1.00 15 1210 0 0 0 0 4
PDB_00571 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 3302 20 5 14 1 25
PDB_00713 - 0.24 0.24 0.25 5 1996 15 0 15 0 16
PDB_00716 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2677 25 1 23 1 23
PDB_00828 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 6
PDB_00829 0.82 0.71 0.94 17 2260 1 0 1 0 7
PDB_00874 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 931 15 0 15 0 20
PDB_00886 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4148 38 0 38 0 40
PDB_01009 0.52 0.57 0.48 12 2460 13 5 8 0 9
PDB_01040 - 0.30 0.30 0.32 6 1109 13 0 13 0 14
PDB_01260 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1809 21 0 21 0 25
PDB_01281 - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 366 12 0 12 0 14
PDB_01299 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 893 10 2 8 0 15
RFA_00632 0.40 0.39 0.41 11 4068 18 0 16 2 17
RFA_00636 0.42 0.43 0.43 12 3977 17 2 14 1 16
RFA_00767 0.63 0.56 0.71 10 1877 5 0 4 1 8
RFA_00768 0.48 0.44 0.53 8 1876 8 1 6 1 10
RFA_00769 0.55 0.56 0.56 10 1935 10 3 5 2 8
RFA_00770 0.68 0.56 0.83 10 2004 6 0 2 4 8
RFA_00773 0.71 0.56 0.91 10 1942 5 1 0 4 8
RFA_00809 0.36 0.38 0.35 6 2128 12 1 10 1 10

^top


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