ArticleProteins2021
Assessing the accuracy of contact and distance predictions in CASP14.
Article in Proteins, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- DescribePROT Database of Residue-Level Protein Structure and Function Annotations.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- The success rate of processed predicted models in molecular replacement: implications for experimental phasing in the AlphaFold era.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2024Article
- SeqPredNN: a neural network that generates protein sequences that fold into specified tertiary structures.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Evolutionary dynamics of genome size and content during the adaptive radiation of Heliconiini butterflies.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Machine learning in computational modelling of membrane protein sequences and structures: From methodologies to applications.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Review
- Using deep-learning predictions of inter-residue distances for model validation.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
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
We present the results of the assessment of the intramolecular residue-residue contact and distance predictions from groups participating in the 14th round of the CASP experiment. The performance of contact prediction methods was evaluated with the measures used in previous CASPs, while distance predictions were assessed based on a new protocol, which considers individual distance pairs as well as the whole predicted distance matrix, using a graph-based framework. The results of the evaluation indicate that predictions by the tFold framework, TripletRes and DeepPotential were the most accurate in both categories. With regards to progress in method performance, the results of the assessment in contact prediction did not reveal any discernible difference when compared to CASP13. Arguably, this could be due to CASP14 FM targets being more challenging than ever before.
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.