Assessment of the protein‐structure refinement category in CASP8
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here, we summarize the assessment of protein structure refinement in CASP8. Twenty-four groups refined a total of 12 target proteins. Averaging over all groups and all proteins, there was no net improvement over the original starting models. However, there are now some individual research groups who consistently do improve protein structures relative to a starting starting model. We compare various measures of quality assessment, including (i) standard backbone-based methods, (ii) new methods from the Richardson group, and (iii) ensemble-based methods for comparing experimental structures, such as NMR NOE violations and the suitability of the predicted models to serve as templates for molecular replacement. On the whole, there is a general correlation among various measures. However, there are interesting differences. Sometimes a structure that is in better agreement with the experimental data is judged to be slightly worse by GDT-TS. This suggests that for comparing protein structures that are already quite close to the native, it may be preferable to use ensemble-based experimentally derived measures of quality, in addition to single-structure-based methods such as GDT-TS.
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 | 0.035 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".