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 RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for RNASampler(20) & Afold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) Afold
MCC 0.518 > 0.485
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.512 ± 0.077 > 0.486 ± 0.091
Sensitivity 0.388 < 0.480
Positive Predictive Value 0.691 > 0.491
Total TP 468 < 578
Total TN 734306 > 733807
Total FP 254 < 707
Total FP CONTRA 33 < 65
Total FP INCONS 176 < 533
Total FP COMP 45 < 109
Total FN 737 > 627
P-value 1.3551590886e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASampler(20) 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 RNASampler(20) 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 RNASampler(20) and Afold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASampler(20) 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 RNASampler(20) and Afold).

^top





Performance of RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASampler(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 468
Total TN 734306
Total FP 254
Total FP CONTRA 33
Total FP INCONS 176
Total FP COMP 45
Total FN 737
Total Scores
MCC 0.518
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.512 ± 0.077
Sensitivity 0.388
Positive Predictive Value 0.691
Nr of predictions 12

^top



2. Individual counts for RNASampler(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
ASE_00064 0.44 0.34 0.58 30 45399 23 1 21 1 59
ASE_00090 0.54 0.40 0.74 40 55557 14 0 14 0 61
ASE_00135 0.54 0.36 0.83 39 63143 16 0 8 8 70
ASE_00153 0.38 0.33 0.44 24 57576 38 7 23 8 49
ASE_00215 0.38 0.23 0.62 23 48479 16 0 14 2 76
ASE_00328 0.70 0.57 0.85 64 72696 14 5 6 3 48
ASE_00361 0.34 0.21 0.55 27 75417 26 3 19 4 100
ASE_00441 0.46 0.31 0.69 35 64210 16 0 16 0 77
TMR_00046 0.48 0.40 0.58 38 62769 34 5 23 6 58
TMR_00048 0.61 0.46 0.80 44 64925 16 3 8 5 51
TMR_00458 0.55 0.42 0.72 39 63492 15 7 8 0 54
TMR_00568 0.72 0.66 0.78 65 60643 26 2 16 8 34

^top



Performance of Afold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 578
Total TN 733807
Total FP 707
Total FP CONTRA 65
Total FP INCONS 533
Total FP COMP 109
Total FN 627
Total Scores
MCC 0.485
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.486 ± 0.091
Sensitivity 0.480
Positive Predictive Value 0.491
Nr of predictions 12

^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
ASE_00064 0.43 0.43 0.44 38 45364 54 5 44 5 51
ASE_00090 0.46 0.47 0.47 47 55510 59 6 48 5 54
ASE_00135 0.45 0.44 0.45 48 63084 63 8 50 5 61
ASE_00153 0.66 0.67 0.65 49 57555 68 2 24 42 24
ASE_00215 0.54 0.51 0.57 50 48429 39 4 33 2 49
ASE_00328 0.40 0.41 0.40 46 72656 75 3 66 6 66
ASE_00361 0.51 0.49 0.53 62 75349 59 7 48 4 65
ASE_00441 0.77 0.72 0.83 81 64163 30 1 16 13 31
TMR_00046 0.47 0.48 0.46 46 62734 61 10 45 6 50
TMR_00048 0.35 0.37 0.34 35 64876 73 9 60 4 60
TMR_00458 0.22 0.22 0.23 20 63458 76 7 61 8 73
TMR_00568 0.57 0.57 0.58 56 60629 50 3 38 9 43

^top


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