Computational Prediction of Intrinsic Disorder in Proteins
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational prediction of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) is a mature research field. These methods predict disordered residues and regions in an input protein chain. More than 60 predictors of IDPs have been developed. This unit defines computational prediction of intrinsic disorder, summarizes major types of predictors of disorder, and provides details about three accurate and recently released methods. We demonstrate the use of these methods to predict intrinsic disorder for several illustrative proteins, provide insights into how predictions should be interpreted, and quantify and discuss predictive performance. Predictions can be freely and conveniently obtained using webservers. We point to the availability of databases that provide access to annotations of intrinsic disorder determined by structural studies and putative intrinsic disorder pre-computed by computational methods. Lastly, we also summarize experimental methods that can be used to validate computational predictions. © 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it