ArticleBMC bioinformatics2014
Dataset size and composition impact the reliability of performance benchmarks for peptide-MHC binding predictions.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 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
42 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discovery of Post-Translationally Modified Epitopes in Autoimmunity: Someone Has to Fish so Everyone Can Eat.Immunological reviews · 2026Review
- MAPLE: interpretable deep learning identifies selective antimicrobial peptides using joint evolutionary-physicochemical analysis.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Design of a global population-covering multi-epitope mRNA vaccine against Lassa virus using immunoinformatics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Energy landscapes of peptide-MHC binding.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- NeoMUST: an accurate and efficient multi-task learning model for neoantigen presentation.Life science alliance · 2024Article
- GIHP: Graph convolutional neural network based interpretable pan-specific HLA-peptide binding affinity prediction.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Accurate TCR-pMHC interaction prediction using a BERT-based transfer learning method.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Combined assessment of MHC binding and antigen abundance improves T cell epitope predictions.iScience · 2022Article
- Positional SHAP (PoSHAP) for Interpretation of machine learning models trained from biological sequences.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- A Novel Machine Learning Strategy for the Prediction of Antihypertensive Peptides Derived from Food with High Efficiency.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- epitopepredict: a tool for integrated MHC binding prediction.GigaByte (Hong Kong, China) · 2021Article
- Ranking-Based Convolutional Neural Network Models for Peptide-MHC Class I Binding Prediction.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2021Article
- Identification and validation of 174 COVID-19 vaccine candidate epitopes reveals low performance of common epitope prediction tools.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Combining Three-Dimensional Modeling with Artificial Intelligence to Increase Specificity and Precision in Peptide-MHC Binding Predictions.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) · 2020Article
- Impact of Cysteine Residues on MHC Binding Predictions and Recognition by Tumor-Reactive T Cells.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) · 2020Article
- USMPep: universal sequence models for major histocompatibility complex binding affinity prediction.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- IConMHC: a deep learning convolutional neural network model to predict peptide and MHC-I binding affinity.Immunogenetics · 2020Article
- T Cell Epitope Predictions.Annual review of immunology · 2020Review
- High-Throughput Prediction of MHC Class I and II Neoantigens with MHCnuggets.Cancer immunology research · 2020Article
- The Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource Program 2003-2018: reflections and outlook.Immunogenetics · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt is important to accurately determine the performance of peptide:MHC binding predictions, as this enables users to compare and choose between different prediction methods and provides estimates of the expected error rate. Two common approaches to determine prediction performance are cross-validation, in which all available data are iteratively split into training and testing data, and the use of blind sets generated separately from the data used to construct the predictive method. In the present study, we have compared cross-validated prediction performances generated on our last benchmark dataset from 2009 with prediction performances generated on data subsequently added to the Immune Epitope Database (IEDB) which served as a blind set.
resultsWe found that cross-validated performances systematically overestimated performance on the blind set. This was found not to be due to the presence of similar peptides in the cross-validation dataset. Rather, we found that small size and low sequence/affinity diversity of either training or blind datasets were associated with large differences in cross-validated vs. blind prediction performances. We use these findings to derive quantitative rules of how large and diverse datasets need to be to provide generalizable performance estimates.
conclusionIt has long been known that cross-validated prediction performance estimates often overestimate performance on independently generated blind set data. We here identify and quantify the specific factors contributing to this effect for MHC-I binding predictions. An increasing number of peptides for which MHC binding affinities are measured experimentally have been selected based on binding predictions and thus are less diverse than historic datasets sampling the entire sequence and affinity space, making them more difficult benchmark data sets. This has to be taken into account when comparing performance metrics between different benchmarks, and when deriving error estimates for predictions based on benchmark performance.
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.