ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
A systematic analysis of regression models for protein engineering.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence and automation in enzyme engineering: evolution, advances, and future perspectives.Bioresources and bioprocessing · 2026Review
- Machine Learning-Driven Simulations of the SARS-CoV-2 Fitness Landscape from Deep Mutational Scanning Experiments.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Deep learning guided design of protease substrates.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Best Practices for Machine Learning-Assisted Protein Engineering.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Review
- Supervised Learning of Protein Melting Temperature: Cross-Species vs. Species-Specific Prediction.Proteins · 2025Article
- Active learning-assisted directed evolution.Nature communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To optimize proteins for particular traits holds great promise for industrial and pharmaceutical purposes. Machine Learning is increasingly applied in this field to predict properties of proteins, thereby guiding the experimental optimization process. A natural question is: How much progress are we making with such predictions, and how important is the choice of regressor and representation? In this paper, we demonstrate that different assessment criteria for regressor performance can lead to dramatically different conclusions, depending on the choice of metric, and how one defines generalization. We highlight the fundamental issues of sample bias in typical regression scenarios and how this can lead to misleading conclusions about regressor performance. Finally, we make the case for the importance of calibrated uncertainty in this domain.
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.