ArticleProteins2019
Estimation of model accuracy in CASP13.
Article in Proteins, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 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
38 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Step-by-Step Protocol for Efficient Global Accuracy Estimation of Protein Complex Structural Models with MViewEMA.Bio-protocol · 2026Article
- Estimating protein complex model accuracy using graph transformers and pairwise similarity graphs.Bioinformatics advances · 2025Article
- Recent advances and challenges in protein complex model accuracy estimation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- Protein folding: Funnel model revised.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Article
- Protein structure accuracy estimation using geometry-complete perceptron networks.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2024Article
- Article
- Assessing protein model quality based on deep graph coupled networks using protein language model.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Role of environmental specificity in CASP results.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Predictive Modeling and Structure Analysis of Genetic Variants in Familial Hypercholesterolemia: Implications for Diagnosis and Protein Interaction Studies.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2023Review
- DeepUMQA3: a web server for accurate assessment of interface residue accuracy in protein complexes.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Integration of pre-trained protein language models into geometric deep learning networks.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Prediction of protein structures, functions and interactions using the IntFOLD7, MultiFOLD and ModFOLDdock servers.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- Narrow funnel-like interaction energy distribution is an indicator of specific protein interaction partner.iScience · 2023Article
- Inhibiting a promiscuous GPCR: iterative discovery of bitter taste receptor ligands.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2023Article
- Combining pairwise structural similarity and deep learning interface contact prediction to estimate protein complex model accuracy in CASP15.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Protein quality assessment with a loss function designed for high-quality decoys.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Estimation of model accuracy by a unique set of features and tree-based regressor.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- DISTEMA: distance map-based estimation of single protein model accuracy with attentive 2D convolutional neural network.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
- SPOT-Contact-LM: improving single-sequence-based prediction of protein contact map using a transformer language model.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- A Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating Practical Performance of Model Quality Assessment of Homology Models.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Methods to reliably estimate the accuracy of 3D models of proteins are both a fundamental part of most protein folding pipelines and important for reliable identification of the best models when multiple pipelines are used. Here, we describe the progress made from CASP12 to CASP13 in the field of estimation of model accuracy (EMA) as seen from the progress of the most successful methods in CASP13. We show small but clear progress, that is, several methods perform better than the best methods from CASP12 when tested on CASP13 EMA targets. Some progress is driven by applying deep learning and residue-residue contacts to model accuracy prediction. We show that the best EMA methods select better models than the best servers in CASP13, but that there exists a great potential to improve this further. Also, according to the evaluation criteria based on local similarities, such as lDDT and CAD, it is now clear that single model accuracy methods perform relatively better than consensus-based methods.
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.