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 PPfold(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric TurboFold(seed) PPfold(seed)
MCC 0.624 > 0.130
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.609 ± 0.217 > 0.074 ± 0.111
Sensitivity 0.590 > 0.037
Positive Predictive Value 0.670 > 0.474
Total TP 144 > 9
Total TN 19618 < 19814
Total FP 90 > 49
Total FP CONTRA 20 > 0
Total FP INCONS 51 > 10
Total FP COMP 19 < 39
Total FN 100 < 235
P-value 1.32883086441e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

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

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

^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 144
Total TN 19618
Total FP 90
Total FP CONTRA 20
Total FP INCONS 51
Total FP COMP 19
Total FN 100
Total Scores
MCC 0.624
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.609 ± 0.217
Sensitivity 0.590
Positive Predictive Value 0.670
Nr of predictions 10

^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
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 PPfold(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 9
Total TN 19814
Total FP 49
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 10
Total FP COMP 39
Total FN 235
Total Scores
MCC 0.130
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.074 ± 0.111
Sensitivity 0.037
Positive Predictive Value 0.474
Nr of predictions 10

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.49 0.33 0.75 6 520 2 0 2 0 12
3RKF_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 866 0 0 0 0 24
3SD1_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1533 0 0 0 0 29
3ZEX_C 0.15 0.07 0.33 2 5368 24 0 4 20 27
4A1C_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2763 0 0 0 0 37
4A1C_2 0.10 0.05 0.20 1 4511 23 0 4 19 19
4AOB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1437 0 0 0 0 29
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 472 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 496 0 0 0 0 15
4FRN_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1848 0 0 0 0 28

^top


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