Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35324806›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2022

A Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating Practical Performance of Model Quality Assessment of Homology Models.

Yuma Takei, Takashi Ishida

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 54% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yuma TakeiDepartment of Computer Science, School of Computing, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-7442-0022
Takashi IshidaDepartment of Computer Science, School of Computing, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9478-3223
Tokyo Institute of Technology · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein structure prediction is an important issue in structural bioinformatics. In this process, model quality assessment (MQA), which estimates the accuracy of the predicted structure, is also practically important. Currently, the most commonly used dataset to evaluate the performance of MQA is the critical assessment of the protein structure prediction (CASP) dataset. However, the CASP dataset does not contain enough targets with high-quality models, and thus cannot sufficiently evaluate the MQA performance in practical use. Additionally, most application studies employ homology modeling because of its reliability. However, the CASP dataset includes models generated by de novo methods, which may lead to the mis-estimation of MQA performance. In this study, we created new benchmark datasets, named a homology models dataset for model quality assessment (HMDM), that contain targets with high-quality models derived using homology modeling. We then benchmarked the performance of the MQA methods using the new datasets and compared their performance to that of the classical selection based on the sequence identity of the template proteins. The results showed that model selection by the latest MQA methods using deep learning is better than selection by template sequence identity and classical statistical potentials. Using HMDM, it is possible to verify the MQA performance for high-accuracy homology models.

Indexed as

deep learningEMAevaluation of model accuracymachine learningmodel quality assessmentMQAprotein structure prediction

Identifiers

PMID35324806
PMCPMC8945737
OpenAlexW4221070829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.