Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22759650›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2012

How to evaluate performance of prediction methods? Measures and their interpretation in variation effect analysis.

Mauno Vihinen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
112citing papers in PubMed
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

112 citing papers in PubMed, 310 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. PON-P3: Accurate Prediction of Pathogenicity of Amino Acid Substitutions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Machine Learning Methods for Gene Selection in Uveal Melanoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  18. 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 · 2023
    Article
  19. PON-Fold: Prediction of Substitutions Affecting Protein Folding Rate.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  20. Article

52 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mauno VihinenInstitute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Finland. mauno.vihinen@med.lu.se
Tampere University · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceComputational BiologyPredictive Value of TestsProtein StabilityRNA, MessengerRNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID22759650
PMCPMC3303716
OpenAlexW2146841526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.