Critical Assessment of Protein Intrinsic Disorder Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intrinsically disordered proteins defying the traditional protein structure-function paradigm represent a challenge to study experimentally. As a large part of our knowledge rests on computational predictions, it is crucial for their accuracy to be high. The Critical Assessment of protein Intrinsic Disorder prediction (CAID) experiment was established as a community-based blind test to determine the state of the art in predicting intrinsically disordered regions in proteins and the subset of disordered residues involved in binding other molecules. A total of 43 methods, 32 for disorder and 11 for binding regions, were evaluated on a dataset of 646 novel manually curated proteins from DisProt. The best methods use deep learning techniques and significantly outperform widely used earlier physicochemical methods across different types of targets. Disordered binding regions remain hard to predict correctly. Depending on the definition used, the top disorder predictor has an F Max of 0.483 ( DisProt ) or 0.792 ( DisProt-PDB ). As the top binding predictor only attains an F Max of 0.231, this suggests significant potential for improvement. Intriguingly, computing times among the top performing methods vary by up to four orders of magnitude.
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 | 0.020 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".