ArticleProteins2023
To split or not to split: CASP15 targets and their processing into tertiary structure evaluation units.
Article in Proteins, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- ProtSeqGen: a novel deep learning model for protein sequence design.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Deep-learning-based single-domain and multidomain protein structure prediction with D-I-TASSER.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
- CASP16 Protein Monomer Structure Prediction Assessment.Proteins · 2026Article
- Progress and Bottlenecks for Deep Learning in Computational Structure Biology: CASP Round XVI.Proteins · 2026Article
- Semi-supervised segmentation of RNA 3D structures using density-based clustering.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Tertiary structure assessment at CASP15.Proteins · 2023Article
- The impact of AI-based modeling on the accuracy of protein assembly prediction: Insights from CASP15.Proteins · 2023Article
- Article
- CASP15 cryo-EM protein and RNA targets: Refinement and analysis using experimental maps.Proteins · 2023Article
- The Impact of AI-Based Modeling on the Accuracy of Protein Assembly Prediction: Insights from CASP15.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Processing of CASP15 targets into evaluation units (EUs) and assigning them to evolutionary-based prediction classes is presented in this study. The targets were first split into structural domains based on compactness and similarity to other proteins. Models were then evaluated against these domains and their combinations. The domains were joined into larger EUs if predictors' performance on the combined units was similar to that on individual domains. Alternatively, if most predictors performed better on the individual domains, then they were retained as EUs. As a result, 112 evaluation units were created from 77 tertiary structure prediction targets. The EUs were assigned to four prediction classes roughly corresponding to target difficulty categories in previous CASPs: TBM (template-based modeling, easy or hard), FM (free modeling), and the TBM/FM overlap category. More than a third of CASP15 EUs were attributed to the historically most challenging FM class, where homology or structural analogy to proteins of known fold cannot be detected.
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.