ArticlePLoS computational biology2021
Development of an experiment-split method for benchmarking the generalization of a PTM site predictor: Lysine methylome as an example.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2021. 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.
- Block sparse Bayes-based fuzzy system for RNA N6-methyladenosine sites prediction.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Discriminant analysis using MRI asymmetry indices and cognitive scores of women with temporal lobe epilepsy or schizophrenia.Neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Determining structures of individual RNA conformers using atomic force microscopy images and deep neural networks.Research square · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many computational classifiers have been developed to predict different types of post-translational modification sites. Their performances are measured using cross-validation or independent test, in which experimental data from different sources are mixed and randomly split into training and test sets. However, the self-reported performances of most classifiers based on this measure are generally higher than their performances in the application of new experimental data. It suggests that the cross-validation method overestimates the generalization ability of a classifier. Here, we proposed a generalization estimate method, dubbed experiment-split test, where the experimental sources for the training set are different from those for the test set that simulate the data derived from a new experiment. We took the prediction of lysine methylome (Kme) as an example and developed a deep learning-based Kme site predictor (called DeepKme) with outstanding performance. We assessed the experiment-split test by comparing it with the cross-validation method. We found that the performance measured using the experiment-split test is lower than that measured in terms of cross-validation. As the test data of the experiment-split method were derived from an independent experimental source, this method could reflect the generalization of the predictor. Therefore, we believe that the experiment-split method can be applied to benchmark the practical performance of a given PTM model. DeepKme is free accessible via https://github.com/guoyangzou/DeepKme.
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.