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(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for TurboFold(20) & RDfolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric TurboFold(20) RDfolder
MCC 0.676 > 0.511
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.691 ± 0.095 > 0.518 ± 0.229
Sensitivity 0.541 > 0.386
Positive Predictive Value 0.851 > 0.687
Total TP 126 > 90
Total TN 19794 < 19811
Total FP 26 < 45
Total FP CONTRA 3 = 3
Total FP INCONS 19 < 38
Total FP COMP 4 = 4
Total FN 107 < 143
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(20) and RDfolder. 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 RDfolder).

  2. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(20) and RDfolder. 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 RDfolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(20) and RDfolder. 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 RDfolder).

  4. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(20) and RDfolder. 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 RDfolder).

^top





Performance of TurboFold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for TurboFold(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 126
Total TN 19794
Total FP 26
Total FP CONTRA 3
Total FP INCONS 19
Total FP COMP 4
Total FN 107
Total Scores
MCC 0.676
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.691 ± 0.095
Sensitivity 0.541
Positive Predictive Value 0.851
Nr of predictions 8

^top



2. Individual counts for TurboFold(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.92 0.90 0.95 18 971 1 0 1 0 2
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3J20_0 0.66 0.57 0.77 17 2828 6 0 5 1 13
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.59 0.48 0.74 20 3889 7 1 6 0 22
4AOB_A 0.56 0.40 0.77 17 4349 6 1 4 1 25
4ENB_A 0.69 0.47 1.00 9 1266 0 0 0 0 10
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10

^top



Performance of RDfolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RDfolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 90
Total TN 19811
Total FP 45
Total FP CONTRA 3
Total FP INCONS 38
Total FP COMP 4
Total FN 143
Total Scores
MCC 0.511
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.518 ± 0.229
Sensitivity 0.386
Positive Predictive Value 0.687
Nr of predictions 8

^top



2. Individual counts for RDfolder [ 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
3AMU_B 0.18 0.15 0.22 4 2985 16 2 12 2 23
3J20_0 0.73 0.57 0.94 17 2832 2 0 1 1 13
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.30 0.17 0.54 7 3903 6 0 6 0 35
4AOB_A 0.35 0.26 0.48 11 4348 13 1 11 1 31
4ENB_A 0.43 0.32 0.60 6 1265 4 0 4 0 13
4ENC_A 0.43 0.32 0.60 6 1316 4 0 4 0 13

^top


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