↓ Skip to main content

Benchmarking Deep Networks for Predicting Residue-Specific Quality of Individual Protein Models in CASP11

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Benchmarking Deep Networks for Predicting Residue-Specific Quality of Individual Protein Models in CASP11
Published in
Scientific Reports, January 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep19301
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Quality assessment of a protein model is to predict the absolute or relative quality of a protein model using computational methods before the native structure is available. Single-model methods only need one model as input and can predict the absolute residue-specific quality of an individual model. Here, we have developed four novel single-model methods (Wang_deep_1, Wang_deep_2, Wang_deep_3, and Wang_SVM) based on stacked denoising autoencoders (SdAs) and support vector machines (SVMs). We evaluated these four methods along with six other methods participating in CASP11 at the global and local levels using Pearson's correlation coefficients and ROC analysis. As for residue-specific quality assessment, our four methods achieved better performance than most of the six other CASP11 methods in distinguishing the reliably modeled residues from the unreliable measured by ROC analysis; and our SdA-based method Wang_deep_1 has achieved the highest accuracy, 0.77, compared to SVM-based methods and our ensemble of an SVM and SdAs. However, we found that Wang_deep_2 and Wang_deep_3, both based on an ensemble of multiple SdAs and an SVM, performed slightly better than Wang_deep_1 in terms of ROC analysis, indicating that integrating an SVM with deep networks works well in terms of certain measurements.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
Switzerland 1 3%
Unknown 33 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 26%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 8 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 17%
Computer Science 5 14%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2017.
All research outputs
#19,805,776
of 25,214,112 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#99,141
of 138,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#282,827
of 407,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#2,362
of 3,252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,214,112 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 138,699 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 407,884 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.