Critical assessment of high-throughput standalone methods for secondary structure prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sequence-based prediction of protein secondary structure (SS) enjoys wide-spread and increasing use for the analysis and prediction of numerous structural and functional characteristics of proteins. The lack of a recent comprehensive and large-scale comparison of the numerous prediction methods results in an often arbitrary selection of a SS predictor. To address this void, we compare and analyze 12 popular, standalone and high-throughput predictors on a large set of 1975 proteins to provide in-depth, novel and practical insights. We show that there is no universally best predictor and thus detailed comparative studies are needed to support informed selection of SS predictors for a given application. Our study shows that the three-state accuracy (Q3) and segment overlap (SOV3) of the SS prediction currently reach 82% and 81%, respectively. We demonstrate that carefully designed consensus-based predictors improve the Q3 by additional 2% and that homology modeling-based methods are significantly better by 1.5% Q3 than ab initio approaches. Our empirical analysis reveals that solvent exposed and flexible coils are predicted with a higher quality than the buried and rigid coils, while inverse is true for the strands and helices. We also show that longer helices are easier to predict, which is in contrast to longer strands that are harder to find. The current methods confuse 1-6% of strand residues with helical residues and vice versa and they perform poorly for residues in the β- bridge and 3(10)-helix conformations. Finally, we compare predictions of the standalone implementations of four well-performing methods with their corresponding web servers.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".