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(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric TurboFold(seed) Fold
MCC 0.529 > 0.432
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.527 ± 0.155 > 0.417 ± 0.166
Sensitivity 0.434 > 0.380
Positive Predictive Value 0.650 > 0.497
Total TP 212 > 186
Total TN 79366 > 79318
Total FP 150 < 234
Total FP CONTRA 16 < 27
Total FP INCONS 98 < 161
Total FP COMP 36 < 46
Total FN 277 < 303
P-value 2.34821445183e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(seed) and Fold. 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(seed) and Fold).

  2. Average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were plotted for different RNA families, for which at least 3 members were present in the benchmarking dataset. 'n' denotes the number of MCCs used to calculate the average and CI. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for TurboFold(seed) and Fold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(seed) and Fold. 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(seed) and Fold).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 212
Total TN 79366
Total FP 150
Total FP CONTRA 16
Total FP INCONS 98
Total FP COMP 36
Total FN 277
Total Scores
MCC 0.529
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.527 ± 0.155
Sensitivity 0.434
Positive Predictive Value 0.650
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
3J3E_8 0.17 0.15 0.21 5 7479 28 2 17 9 28
3J3F_8 0.39 0.36 0.42 13 12215 32 2 16 14 23
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
3W1K_J 0.87 0.79 0.97 30 4155 1 1 0 0 8
3ZEX_C 0.39 0.27 0.56 14 14171 14 2 9 3 38
4A1C_3 0.69 0.57 0.84 31 7103 6 0 6 0 23
4A1C_2 0.15 0.15 0.15 5 11748 37 3 25 9 28
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
4FRN_A 0.69 0.56 0.87 20 5128 3 1 2 0 16
4JF2_A 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 12

^top



Performance of Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 186
Total TN 79318
Total FP 234
Total FP CONTRA 27
Total FP INCONS 161
Total FP COMP 46
Total FN 303
Total Scores
MCC 0.432
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.417 ± 0.166
Sensitivity 0.380
Positive Predictive Value 0.497
Nr of predictions 14

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7478 34 2 23 9 33
3J3F_8 0.28 0.28 0.29 10 12211 39 5 20 14 26
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.57 0.48 0.69 20 3887 9 1 8 0 22
3W1K_J 0.87 0.79 0.97 30 4155 1 1 0 0 8
3ZEX_C 0.22 0.21 0.24 11 14151 45 4 30 11 41
4A1C_3 0.68 0.57 0.82 31 7102 7 1 6 0 23
4A1C_2 0.14 0.15 0.14 5 11744 43 5 27 11 28
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ENB_A 0.32 0.26 0.42 5 1263 7 1 6 0 14
4ENC_A 0.31 0.26 0.38 5 1313 8 1 7 0 14
4FRN_A 0.41 0.36 0.46 13 5123 15 2 13 0 23
4JF2_A 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 12

^top


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