Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39133843›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2024

AlphaFold two years on: Validation and impact.

Oleg Kovalevskiy, Juan Mateos-Garcia, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Enhanced Sampling and Free Energy Calculations in Protein Simulations.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Oleg KovalevskiyGoogle DeepMind, London N1C 4DN, United Kingdom.
Juan Mateos-GarciaGoogle DeepMind, London N1C 4DN, United Kingdom.
Kathryn TunyasuvunakoolGoogle DeepMind, London N1C 4DN, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two years on from the initial release of AlphaFold, we have seen its widespread adoption as a structure prediction tool. Here, we discuss some of the latest work based on AlphaFold, with a particular focus on its use within the structural biology community. This encompasses use cases like speeding up structure determination itself, enabling new computational studies, and building new tools and workflows. We also look at the ongoing validation of AlphaFold, as its predictions continue to be compared against large numbers of experimental structures to further delineate the model's capabilities and limitations.

Indexed as

AlphaFoldprotein structure predictionstructural biology

Identifiers

PMID39133843
PMCPMC11348012

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.