ArticleProteins2016
Methods of model accuracy estimation can help selecting the best models from decoy sets: Assessment of model accuracy estimations in CASP11.
Article in Proteins, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 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
44 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the structural models of the human reference proteome: AlphaFold2 versus ESMFold.Current research in structural biology · 2025Article
- Challenges in bridging the gap between protein structure prediction and functional interpretation.Proteins · 2025Article
- Recent advances and challenges in protein complex model accuracy estimation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- New prediction categories in CASP15.Proteins · 2023Article
- Assessing protein model quality based on deep graph coupled networks using protein language model.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- iQDeep: an integrated web server for protein scoring using multiscale deep learning models.Journal of molecular biology · 2023Article
- Accurate protein stability predictions from homology models.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Article
- Assessment of protein model structure accuracy estimation in CASP14: Old and new challenges.Proteins · 2021Article
- Modeling SARS-CoV-2 proteins in the CASP-commons experiment.Proteins · 2021Article
- Using physical features of protein core packing to distinguish real proteins from decoys.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2020Article
- MASS: predict the global qualities of individual protein models using random forests and novel statistical potentials.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Review
- QDeep: distance-based protein model quality estimation by residue-level ensemble error classifications using stacked deep residual neural networks.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- High-accuracy protein structures by combining machine-learning with physics-based refinement.Proteins · 2020Article
- Machine Learning Approaches for Quality Assessment of Protein Structures.Biomolecules · 2020Review
- QMEANDisCo-distance constraints applied on model quality estimation.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Assessment of protein model structure accuracy estimation in CASP13: Challenges in the era of deep learning.Proteins · 2019Article
- Unsupervised and Supervised Learning over theEnergy Landscape for Protein Decoy Selection.Biomolecules · 2019Article
- IntFOLD: an integrated web resource for high performance protein structure and function prediction.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- PSICA: a fast and accurate web service for protein model quality analysis.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- Validation and quality assessment of macromolecular structures using complex network analysis.Scientific reports · 2019Article
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
The article presents assessment of the model accuracy estimation methods participating in CASP11. The results of the assessment are expected to be useful to both-developers of the methods and users who way too often are presented with structural models without annotations of accuracy. The main emphasis is placed on the ability of techniques to identify the best models from among several available. Bivariate descriptive statistics and ROC analysis are used to additionally assess the overall correctness of the predicted model accuracy scores, the correlation between the predicted and observed accuracy of models, the effectiveness in distinguishing between good and bad models, the ability to discriminate between reliable and unreliable regions in models, and the accuracy of the coordinate error self-estimates. A rigid-body measure (GDT_TS) and three local-structure-based scores (LDDT, CADaa, and SphereGrinder) are used as reference measures for evaluating methods' performance. Consensus methods, taking advantage of the availability of several models for the same target protein, perform well on the majority of tasks. Methods that predict accuracy on the basis of a single model perform comparably to consensus methods in picking the best models and in the estimation of how accurate is the local structure. More groups than in previous experiments submitted reasonable error estimates of their own models, most likely in response to a recommendation from CASP and the increasing demand from users. Proteins 2016; 84(Suppl 1):349-369. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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.