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 0.337 > 0.326
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.378 ± 0.141 < 0.405 ± 0.177
Sensitivity 0.303 > 0.268
Positive Predictive Value 0.376 < 0.398
Total TP 334 > 295
Total TN 1164084 < 1164232
Total FP 599 > 482
Total FP CONTRA 58 > 39
Total FP INCONS 497 > 407
Total FP COMP 44 > 36
Total FN 767 < 806
P-value 6.0017973759e-06

^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 334
Total TN 1164084
Total FP 599
Total FP CONTRA 58
Total FP INCONS 497
Total FP COMP 44
Total FN 767
Total Scores
MCC 0.337
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.378 ± 0.141
Sensitivity 0.303
Positive Predictive Value 0.376
Nr of predictions 18

^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
2LKR_A - 0.93 0.87 1.00 34 6071 3 0 0 3 5
2M58_A - 0.33 0.29 0.38 5 1640 8 1 7 0 12
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1210 15 1 14 0 17
3J2C_O - 0.58 0.49 0.69 31 10251 15 1 13 1 32
3J3E_8 0.17 0.15 0.19 5 7477 31 2 19 10 28
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3W3S_B 0.50 0.45 0.56 18 4721 15 1 13 1 22
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21892 55 2 51 2 77
3ZEX_D 0.72 0.61 0.86 30 6986 5 0 5 0 19
3ZEX_F - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2617 12 2 9 1 12
3ZEX_B - 0.29 0.26 0.32 147 1071922 322 35 276 11 411
3ZEX_H - 0.18 0.18 0.18 7 9006 33 6 26 1 31
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11745 43 5 26 12 28
4ATO_G - 0.32 0.30 0.38 3 520 6 1 4 1 7
4ENB_A 0.67 0.58 0.79 11 1261 3 1 2 0 8
4FNJ_A - 0.75 0.63 0.91 10 584 1 0 1 0 6
4JRC_A - 0.24 0.22 0.29 5 1523 12 0 12 0 18

^top



Performance of ContextFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 295
Total TN 1164232
Total FP 482
Total FP CONTRA 39
Total FP INCONS 407
Total FP COMP 36
Total FN 806
Total Scores
MCC 0.326
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.405 ± 0.177
Sensitivity 0.268
Positive Predictive Value 0.398
Nr of predictions 18

^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 0.55 0.50 0.63 10 1524 6 0 6 0 10
2LKR_A - 0.65 0.56 0.76 22 6076 9 0 7 2 17
2M58_A - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1639 14 0 14 0 17
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1212 13 0 13 0 17
3J2C_O - 0.83 0.70 1.00 44 10252 1 0 0 1 19
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7483 29 9 11 9 33
3U4M_B - 0.75 0.57 1.00 21 3139 0 0 0 0 16
3W3S_B 0.79 0.70 0.90 28 4722 4 0 3 1 12
3ZEX_E - 0.08 0.06 0.10 5 21896 44 5 39 0 72
3ZEX_D 0.81 0.67 0.97 33 6987 1 0 1 0 16
3ZEX_F - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2617 16 2 9 5 12
3ZEX_B - 0.19 0.15 0.23 86 1072008 291 21 265 5 472
3ZEX_H - 0.22 0.21 0.24 8 9011 26 2 24 0 30
4A1C_2 0.20 0.15 0.28 5 11763 26 0 13 13 28
4ATO_G - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 526 2 0 2 0 10
4ENB_A 0.69 0.47 1.00 9 1266 0 0 0 0 10
4FNJ_A - 0.79 0.63 1.00 10 585 0 0 0 0 6
4JRC_A - 0.78 0.61 1.00 14 1526 0 0 0 0 9

^top


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