Table of contents:
- Overview
- Performance Plots
- Performance of TurboFold(20)
- scored higher in this pairwise comparison
- Performance of Afold
- scored lower in this pairwise comparison
- Compile and download dataset for TurboFold(20) & Afold [.zip] - may take several seconds...
Overview
| Metric |
TurboFold(20) |
|
Afold |
|---|
| MCC |
0.646 |
>
|
0.611 |
| Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals |
0.661
±
0.354
|
>
|
0.655
±
0.383
|
| Sensitivity |
0.535 |
<
|
0.548 |
| Positive Predictive Value |
0.783 |
>
|
0.685 |
| Total TP |
83 |
<
|
85 |
| Total TN |
23172 |
>
|
23154 |
| Total FP |
32 |
<
|
51 |
| Total FP CONTRA |
0 |
<
|
6 |
| Total FP INCONS |
23 |
<
|
33 |
| Total FP COMP |
9 |
<
|
12 |
| Total FN |
72 |
>
|
70 |
| P-value |
0.0 |
Performance plots
-
Comparison of performance of TurboFold(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 TurboFold(20)
and Afold).
-
Comparison of performance of TurboFold(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 TurboFold(20)
and Afold).
-
Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(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 TurboFold(20)
and Afold).
-
Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(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 TurboFold(20)
and Afold).
Performance of TurboFold(20)
- scored higher in this pairwise comparison
1. Total counts & total scores for TurboFold(20)
| Total Base Pair Counts |
|---|
| Total TP |
83 |
| Total TN |
23172 |
| Total FP |
32 |
| Total FP CONTRA |
0 |
| Total FP INCONS |
23 |
| Total FP COMP |
9 |
| Total FN |
72 |
| Total Scores |
|---|
| MCC |
0.646 |
| Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals |
0.661
±
0.354
|
| Sensitivity |
0.535 |
| Positive Predictive Value |
0.783 |
| Nr of predictions |
5 |
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 |
Matthews Correlation Coeffient, Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value have been calculated based
on the paper by Gardener & Giegerich, 2004.
| 
