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 NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Afold NanoFolder
MCC 0.632 > 0.445
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.757 ± 0.167 > 0.677 ± 0.194
Sensitivity 0.667 > 0.549
Positive Predictive Value 0.608 > 0.374
Total TP 192 > 158
Total TN 23126 > 23020
Total FP 162 < 296
Total FP CONTRA 40 < 92
Total FP INCONS 84 < 172
Total FP COMP 38 > 32
Total FN 96 < 130
P-value 3.18846395401e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of Afold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 192
Total TN 23126
Total FP 162
Total FP CONTRA 40
Total FP INCONS 84
Total FP COMP 38
Total FN 96
Total Scores
MCC 0.632
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.757 ± 0.167
Sensitivity 0.667
Positive Predictive Value 0.608
Nr of predictions 17

^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
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 6 0 5 1 7
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 29 2411 8 0 0 8 0
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2LWK_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 197 2 0 1 1 2
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 1 0 0 1 0
3W3S_B 0.55 0.55 0.56 18 1957 15 4 10 1 15
3ZEX_D 0.82 0.77 0.87 27 2765 8 0 4 4 8
3ZEX_E - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 8251 55 17 36 2 34
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 43 11 17 15 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4ATO_G - 0.38 0.43 0.38 3 212 6 5 0 1 4
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 89 1 0 0 1 0

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 158
Total TN 23020
Total FP 296
Total FP CONTRA 92
Total FP INCONS 172
Total FP COMP 32
Total FN 130
Total Scores
MCC 0.445
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.677 ± 0.194
Sensitivity 0.549
Positive Predictive Value 0.374
Nr of predictions 17

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.54 0.61 0.50 11 506 11 1 10 0 7
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.26 0.34 0.21 10 2392 41 15 23 3 19
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 3 0 0 3 0
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 2 0 0 2 1
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.77 0.91 0.67 20 1246 12 6 4 2 2
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
3W3S_B 0.18 0.21 0.18 7 1949 34 2 31 1 26
3ZEX_D 0.30 0.37 0.27 13 2747 36 10 26 0 22
3ZEX_E - 0.03 0.06 0.02 2 8222 86 31 49 6 32
4A1C_2 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4469 61 18 29 14 20
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4ATO_G - 0.72 1.00 0.54 7 207 6 6 0 0 0
4HXH_A - 0.80 1.00 0.67 6 86 3 3 0 0 0

^top


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