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 ContextFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for Afold & ContextFold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Afold ContextFold
MCC 0.373 > 0.332
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.434 ± 0.137 < 0.454 ± 0.294
Sensitivity 0.410 > 0.333
Positive Predictive Value 0.342 > 0.333
Total TP 207 > 168
Total TN 433655 < 433757
Total FP 475 > 377
Total FP CONTRA 107 > 81
Total FP INCONS 292 > 255
Total FP COMP 76 > 41
Total FN 298 < 337
P-value 0.00890162725214

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Afold and ContextFold. 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 ContextFold).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Afold and ContextFold. 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 ContextFold).

^top





Performance of Afold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Afold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 207
Total TN 433655
Total FP 475
Total FP CONTRA 107
Total FP INCONS 292
Total FP COMP 76
Total FN 298
Total Scores
MCC 0.373
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.434 ± 0.137
Sensitivity 0.410
Positive Predictive Value 0.342
Nr of predictions 10

^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 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 6 0 5 1 7
2M58_A - 0.40 0.42 0.42 5 532 8 1 6 1 7
3J3E_8 0.26 0.33 0.21 5 2718 31 6 13 12 10
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3W3S_B 0.55 0.55 0.56 18 1957 15 4 10 1 15
3ZEX_B - 0.34 0.38 0.31 132 420926 337 77 217 43 214
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 43 11 17 15 15
4ATO_G - 0.38 0.43 0.38 3 212 6 5 0 1 4
4ENB_A 0.81 0.73 0.92 11 460 3 0 1 2 4
4JRC_A - 0.27 0.29 0.29 5 605 12 0 12 0 12

^top



Performance of ContextFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 168
Total TN 433757
Total FP 377
Total FP CONTRA 81
Total FP INCONS 255
Total FP COMP 41
Total FN 337
Total Scores
MCC 0.332
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.454 ± 0.294
Sensitivity 0.333
Positive Predictive Value 0.333
Nr of predictions 10

^top



2. Individual counts for ContextFold [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.58 0.56 0.63 10 512 6 0 6 0 8
2M58_A - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 530 14 3 11 0 12
3J3E_8 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2722 29 12 8 9 15
3U4M_B - 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1255 0 0 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.87 0.85 0.90 28 1958 4 0 3 1 5
3ZEX_B - 0.23 0.23 0.23 81 420993 296 62 216 18 265
4A1C_2 0.26 0.25 0.28 5 4498 26 3 10 13 15
4ATO_G - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 218 2 1 1 0 7
4ENB_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 9 463 0 0 0 0 6
4JRC_A - 0.91 0.82 1.00 14 608 0 0 0 0 3

^top


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