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 TurboFold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric TurboFold(20) RDfolder
MCC 0.776 > 0.584
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.784 ± 0.081 > 0.582 ± 0.242
Sensitivity 0.724 > 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.842 > 0.677
Total TP 123 > 88
Total TN 7391 < 7407
Total FP 29 < 47
Total FP CONTRA 6 < 9
Total FP INCONS 17 < 33
Total FP COMP 6 > 5
Total FN 47 < 82
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(20) and RDfolder. 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 TurboFold(20) and RDfolder).

  2. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(20) and RDfolder. 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 TurboFold(20) and RDfolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(20) and RDfolder. 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 TurboFold(20) and RDfolder).

  4. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(20) and RDfolder. 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 TurboFold(20) and RDfolder).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 123
Total TN 7391
Total FP 29
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 17
Total FP COMP 6
Total FN 47
Total Scores
MCC 0.776
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.784 ± 0.081
Sensitivity 0.724
Positive Predictive Value 0.842
Nr of predictions 8

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.94 0.94 0.94 17 339 2 0 1 1 1
3AMU_B 0.81 0.79 0.83 15 1139 6 0 3 3 4
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 1 5 1 5
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.71 0.69 0.74 20 1506 7 2 5 0 9
4AOB_A 0.67 0.59 0.77 17 1415 6 2 3 1 12
4ENB_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 9 463 0 0 0 0 6
4ENC_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 9 486 1 1 0 0 6

^top



Performance of RDfolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RDfolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 88
Total TN 7407
Total FP 47
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 33
Total FP COMP 5
Total FN 82
Total Scores
MCC 0.584
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.582 ± 0.242
Sensitivity 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.677
Nr of predictions 8

^top



2. Individual counts for RDfolder [ 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
3AMU_B 0.20 0.21 0.22 4 1139 16 4 10 2 15
3J20_0 0.82 0.76 0.89 16 1201 3 1 1 1 5
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.35 0.24 0.54 7 1520 6 1 5 0 22
4AOB_A 0.42 0.38 0.48 11 1414 13 3 9 1 18
4ENB_A 0.48 0.40 0.60 6 462 4 0 4 0 9
4ENC_A 0.48 0.40 0.60 6 486 4 0 4 0 9

^top


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