ArticleBMC genomics2012
How to evaluate performance of prediction methods? Measures and their interpretation in variation effect analysis.
Article in BMC genomics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 112 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
112 citing papers in PubMed, 310 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variations in sustained home visiting care for mothers and children experiencing adversity.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.) · 2022Trial
- Membrane-Traversing Peptides: Mechanistic Landscapes, Assays, and Applications.Chemical reviews · 2026Review
- PON-Del predictor for sequence retaining protein deletions.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Article
- A new framework for X-ray absorption spectroscopy data analysis based on machine learning: XASDAML.Journal of synchrotron radiation · 2025Article
- Assessing the performance of 28 pathogenicity prediction methods on rare single nucleotide variants in coding regions.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Use of artificial intelligence in the analysis of digital videos of invasive surgical procedures: scoping review.BJS open · 2025Article
- PRP: pathogenic risk prediction for rare nonsynonymous single nucleotide variants.Human genetics · 2025Article
- Topology-driven negative sampling enhances generalizability in protein-protein interaction prediction.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Article
- PON-P3: Accurate Prediction of Pathogenicity of Amino Acid Substitutions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Integrating GWAS and machine learning for disease risk prediction in the Taiwanese Hakka population.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- AI-derived comparative assessment of the performance of pathogenicity prediction tools on missense variants of breast cancer genes.Human genomics · 2024Article
- Article
- Reporting guidelines in medical artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Communications medicine · 2024Article
- Machine Learning Methods for Gene Selection in Uveal Melanoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Machine Learning Models to Predict Future Frailty in Community-Dwelling Middle-Aged and Older Adults: The ELSA Cohort Study.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2023Article
- PON-Fold: Prediction of Substitutions Affecting Protein Folding Rate.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Choosing Variant Interpretation Tools for Clinical Applications: Context Matters.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
52 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrediction methods are increasingly used in biosciences to forecast diverse features and characteristics. Binary two-state classifiers are the most common applications. They are usually based on machine learning approaches. For the end user it is often problematic to evaluate the true performance and applicability of computational tools as some knowledge about computer science and statistics would be needed.
resultsInstructions are given on how to interpret and compare method evaluation results. For systematic method performance analysis is needed established benchmark datasets which contain cases with known outcome, and suitable evaluation measures. The criteria for benchmark datasets are discussed along with their implementation in VariBench, benchmark database for variations. There is no single measure that alone could describe all the aspects of method performance. Predictions of genetic variation effects on DNA, RNA and protein level are important as information about variants can be produced much faster than their disease relevance can be experimentally verified. Therefore numerous prediction tools have been developed, however, systematic analyses of their performance and comparison have just started to emerge.
conclusionsThe end users of prediction tools should be able to understand how evaluation is done and how to interpret the results. Six main performance evaluation measures are introduced. These include sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy and Matthews correlation coefficient. Together with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis they provide a good picture about the performance of methods and allow their objective and quantitative comparison. A checklist of items to look at is provided. Comparisons of methods for missense variant tolerance, protein stability changes due to amino acid substitutions, and effects of variations on mRNA splicing are presented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.