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 0.546 > 0.386
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.701 ± 0.165 > 0.631 ± 0.182
Sensitivity 0.495 > 0.406
Positive Predictive Value 0.607 > 0.374
Total TP 201 > 165
Total TN 60064 > 59954
Total FP 153 < 289
Total FP CONTRA 10 < 38
Total FP INCONS 120 < 238
Total FP COMP 23 > 13
Total FN 205 < 241
P-value 2.41358941668e-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 201
Total TN 60064
Total FP 153
Total FP CONTRA 10
Total FP INCONS 120
Total FP COMP 23
Total FN 205
Total Scores
MCC 0.546
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.701 ± 0.165
Sensitivity 0.495
Positive Predictive Value 0.607
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 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 6 0 5 1 9
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 1 0 0 1 2
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.87 1.00 34 6071 3 0 0 3 5
2LQZ_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 341 1 1 0 0 2
2LWK_A - 0.75 0.69 0.82 9 485 2 0 2 0 4
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 1 0 0 1 1
3W3S_B 0.50 0.45 0.56 18 4721 15 1 13 1 22
3ZEX_D 0.72 0.61 0.86 30 6986 5 0 5 0 19
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21892 55 2 51 2 77
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11745 43 5 26 12 28
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4ATO_G - 0.32 0.30 0.38 3 520 6 1 4 1 7
4HXH_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 319 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 165
Total TN 59954
Total FP 289
Total FP CONTRA 38
Total FP INCONS 238
Total FP COMP 13
Total FN 241
Total Scores
MCC 0.386
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.631 ± 0.182
Sensitivity 0.406
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 0.52 0.55 0.50 11 1518 11 0 11 0 9
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 1 0 0 1 2
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.29 0.33 0.25 13 6054 38 8 30 0 26
2LQZ_A - 0.91 0.91 0.91 10 340 1 1 0 0 1
2LWK_A - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 485 2 0 1 1 3
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.61 0.57 0.66 21 3128 11 1 10 0 16
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.17 0.18 0.18 7 4713 34 1 32 1 33
3ZEX_D 0.26 0.27 0.27 13 6972 36 1 35 0 36
3ZEX_E - 0.03 0.04 0.03 3 21859 85 9 74 2 74
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11728 61 12 41 8 33
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4ATO_G - 0.61 0.70 0.54 7 515 6 2 4 0 3
4HXH_A - 0.81 1.00 0.67 6 316 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.