ArticleScientific reports2019
CDAP: An Online Package for Evaluation of Complex Detection Methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Small protein complex prediction algorithm based on protein-protein interaction network segmentation.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Computational identification of protein complexes from network interactions: Present state, challenges, and the way forward.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Review
- Efficient and accurate identification of protein complexes from protein-protein interaction networks based on the clustering coefficient.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Article
- Classifying Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes by Using Deep Clustering Approach.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Methods for detecting protein complexes from protein-protein interaction networks are of the most critical computational approaches. Numerous methods have been proposed in this area. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate them. Various metrics have been proposed in order to compare these methods. Nevertheless, it is essential to define new metrics that evaluate methods both qualitatively and quantitatively. In addition, there is no tool for the comprehensive comparison of such methods. In this paper, a new criterion is introduced that can fully evaluate protein complex detection algorithms. We introduce CDAP (Complex Detection Analyzer Package); an online package for comparing protein complex detection methods. CDAP can quickly rank the performance of methods based on previously defined as well as newly introduced criteria in various settings (4 PPI datasets and 3 gold standards). It has the capability of integrating various methods and apply several filterings on the results. CDAP can be easily extended to include new datasets, gold standards, and methods. Furthermore, the user can compare the results of a custom method with the results of existing methods. Thus, the authors of future papers can use CDAP for comparing their method with the previous ones. A case study is done on YGR198W, a well-known protein, and the detected clusters are compared to the known complexes of this protein.
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.