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 0.623 > 0.611
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.588 ± 0.287 < 0.655 ± 0.383
Sensitivity 0.484 < 0.548
Positive Predictive Value 0.806 > 0.685
Total TP 75 < 85
Total TN 23185 > 23154
Total FP 22 < 51
Total FP CONTRA 0 < 6
Total FP INCONS 18 < 33
Total FP COMP 4 < 12
Total FN 80 > 70
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 75
Total TN 23185
Total FP 22
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 18
Total FP COMP 4
Total FN 80
Total Scores
MCC 0.623
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.588 ± 0.287
Sensitivity 0.484
Positive Predictive Value 0.806
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 0.63 0.45 0.90 9 980 1 0 1 0 11
3RKF_A 0.73 0.56 0.95 19 2191 1 0 1 0 15
3ZEX_D 0.81 0.71 0.92 35 6983 3 0 3 0 14
4A1C_2 0.21 0.15 0.29 5 11764 16 0 12 4 28
4ENB_A 0.56 0.37 0.88 7 1267 1 0 1 0 12

^top



Performance of Afold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 85
Total TN 23154
Total FP 51
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 33
Total FP COMP 12
Total FN 70
Total Scores
MCC 0.611
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.655 ± 0.383
Sensitivity 0.548
Positive Predictive Value 0.685
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 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 971 0 0 0 0 1
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3ZEX_D 0.72 0.61 0.86 30 6986 5 0 5 0 19
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11745 43 5 26 12 28
4ENB_A 0.67 0.58 0.79 11 1261 3 1 2 0 8

^top


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