Functional relevance of CASP16 nucleic acid predictions as evaluated by structure providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate biomolecular structure prediction enables the prediction of mutational effects, the speculation of function based on predicted structural homology, the analysis of ligand binding modes, experimental model building and many other applications. Such algorithms to predict essential functional and structural features remain out of reach for biomolecular. Here, we report quantitative and qualitative evaluation of nucleic acid structures for the CASP16 blind prediction challenge by 12 of the experimental groups who provided nucleic acid targets. Blind predictions accurately model secondary structure and some aspects of tertiary structure, including reasonable global folds for some complex RNAs, however, predictions often lack accuracy in the regions of highest functional importance. All models have inaccuracies in non-canonical regions where, e.g., the nucleic-acid backbone bends or a base forms a non-standard hydrogen bond. These bends and non-canonical interactions are integral to form functionally important regions such as RNA enzymatic active sites. Additionally, the modeling of conserved and functional interfaces between nucleic acids and ligands, proteins, or other nucleic acids remains poor. For some targets, the experimental structures may not represent the only structure the biomolecular complex occupies in solution or in its functional life-cycle, posing a future challenge for the community.
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 | 0.015 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".