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 PPfold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric PPfold(20) Afold
MCC 0.718 > 0.713
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.670 ± 0.321 < 0.747 ± 0.398
Sensitivity 0.643 < 0.723
Positive Predictive Value 0.809 > 0.711
Total TP 72 < 81
Total TN 8918 > 8893
Total FP 25 < 55
Total FP CONTRA 1 < 11
Total FP INCONS 16 < 22
Total FP COMP 8 < 22
Total FN 40 > 31
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


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

  2. Comparison of performance of PPfold(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 PPfold(20) and Afold).

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

  4. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for PPfold(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 PPfold(20) and Afold).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 72
Total TN 8918
Total FP 25
Total FP CONTRA 1
Total FP INCONS 16
Total FP COMP 8
Total FN 40
Total Scores
MCC 0.718
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.670 ± 0.321
Sensitivity 0.643
Positive Predictive Value 0.809
Nr of predictions 5

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.66 0.50 0.90 9 347 1 0 1 0 9
3RKF_A 0.86 0.79 0.95 19 846 1 0 1 0 5
3ZEX_D 0.93 0.91 0.94 32 2762 6 0 2 4 3
4A1C_2 0.27 0.25 0.29 5 4499 16 1 11 4 15
4ENB_A 0.63 0.47 0.88 7 464 1 0 1 0 8

^top



Performance of Afold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 81
Total TN 8893
Total FP 55
Total FP CONTRA 11
Total FP INCONS 22
Total FP COMP 22
Total FN 31
Total Scores
MCC 0.713
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.747 ± 0.398
Sensitivity 0.723
Positive Predictive Value 0.711
Nr of predictions 5

^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
2L94_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 339 1 0 0 1 0
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3ZEX_D 0.82 0.77 0.87 27 2765 8 0 4 4 8
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 43 11 17 15 15
4ENB_A 0.81 0.73 0.92 11 460 3 0 1 2 4

^top


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