Score_set: A CAPRI benchmark for scoring protein complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions (CAPRI) has proven to be a catalyst for the development of docking algorithms. An essential step in docking is the scoring of predicted binding modes in order to identify stable complexes. In 2005, CAPRI introduced the scoring experiment, where upon completion of a prediction round, a larger set of models predicted by different groups and comprising both correct and incorrect binding modes, is made available to all participants for testing new scoring functions independently from docking calculations. Here we present an expanded benchmark data set for testing scoring functions, which comprises the consolidated ensemble of predicted complexes made available in the CAPRI scoring experiment since its inception. This consolidated scoring benchmark contains predicted complexes for 15 published CAPRI targets. These targets were subjected to 23 CAPRI assessments, due to existence of multiple binding modes for some targets. The benchmark contains more than 19,000 protein complexes. About 10% of the complexes represent docking predictions of acceptable quality or better, the remainder represent incorrect solutions (decoys). The benchmark set contains models predicted by 47 different predictor groups including web servers, which use different docking and scoring procedures, and is arguably as diverse as one may expect, representing the state of the art in protein docking. The data set is publicly available at the following URL: http://cb.iri.univ-lille1.fr/Users/lensink/Score_set.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".