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(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric TurboFold(seed) Fold
MCC 0.647 > 0.532
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.639 ± 0.205 > 0.515 ± 0.219
Sensitivity 0.615 > 0.550
Positive Predictive Value 0.691 > 0.527
Total TP 161 > 144
Total TN 19957 > 19917
Total FP 92 < 162
Total FP CONTRA 20 < 38
Total FP INCONS 52 < 91
Total FP COMP 20 < 33
Total FN 101 < 118
P-value 1.70887622364e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(seed) and Fold. 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(seed) and Fold).

  2. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(seed) and Fold. 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(seed) and Fold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(seed) and Fold. 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(seed) and Fold).

  4. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(seed) and Fold. 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(seed) and Fold).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 161
Total TN 19957
Total FP 92
Total FP CONTRA 20
Total FP INCONS 52
Total FP COMP 20
Total FN 101
Total Scores
MCC 0.647
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.639 ± 0.205
Sensitivity 0.615
Positive Predictive Value 0.691
Nr of predictions 11

^top



2. Individual counts for TurboFold(seed) [ 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
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
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
3ZEX_C 0.49 0.45 0.54 13 5350 15 2 9 4 16
4A1C_3 0.86 0.84 0.89 31 2728 6 0 4 2 6
4A1C_2 0.20 0.25 0.17 5 4486 37 9 16 12 15
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
4FRN_A 0.79 0.71 0.87 20 1825 3 1 2 0 8

^top



Performance of Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 144
Total TN 19917
Total FP 162
Total FP CONTRA 38
Total FP INCONS 91
Total FP COMP 33
Total FN 118
Total Scores
MCC 0.532
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.515 ± 0.219
Sensitivity 0.550
Positive Predictive Value 0.527
Nr of predictions 11

^top



2. Individual counts for Fold [ 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
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1504 9 4 5 0 9
3ZEX_C 0.28 0.34 0.23 10 5330 46 9 25 12 19
4A1C_3 0.86 0.84 0.89 31 2728 7 0 4 3 6
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4482 43 11 18 14 15
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 461 7 0 6 1 10
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 8 0 7 1 10
4FRN_A 0.46 0.46 0.46 13 1820 15 7 8 0 15

^top


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