Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42540506›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics advances2026

Fold or flop: quality assessment of AlphaFold predictions on whole proteomes.

Edoardo Sarti, Frédéric Cazals

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics advances, 2026. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Edoardo SartiAlgorithms, Biology, Structure, Inria, Route des Lucioles, 06902, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2417-1448
Frédéric CazalsAlgorithms, Biology, Structure, Inria, Route des Lucioles, 06902, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2735-6755

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motivation: Reliability of AlphaFold2 predictions is mainly assessed using the predicted Local Distance Difference Test (pLDDT). For model organisms, 30-40% of residues fall into the low-confidence pLDDT range. Moreover, pLDDT sometimes fails to flag physically implausible structures. This raises two questions: can more robust reliability indicators be identified, and do unreliable predictions share common structural or biophysical features? Results: We characterize protein structures through histograms of per-residue neighbor counts, and use the Wasserstein principal component analysis to define the arity map, and lightweight and informative 2D embedding of proteins in a dataset. Using AlphaFold-DB, we show that the arity map reveals three structurally and biophysically distinct populations (well-folded proteins, intrinsically disordered proteins, and physically implausible predictions). We also use our packing based encoding at the residue level to define abstraqt (Arity-Based STRuctural Arrangement Quality assessmenT), a per-residue scoring function complementing the pLDDT, assigning low scores to hallucinated helices and distorted beta strands while correctly scoring native-like predictions. Availability: The code to compute arity maps and rerun the analyses is available within the Structural Bioinformatics Library. See: AlphaFold analysis, and also Documentation, Applications, Installation guide.

Identifiers

PMID42540506
PMCPMC13426001

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.