Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 228

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)-round V

Moult, John, Fidelis, Krzysztof, Zemla, Adam, Hubbard, Tim·2003·Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics

Abstract

This article provides an introduction to the special issue of the journal Proteins dedicated to the fifth CASP experiment to assess the state of the art in protein structure prediction. The article describes the conduct, the categories of prediction, and the evaluation and assessment procedures of the experiment. A brief summary of progress over the five CASP experiments is provided. Related developments in the field are also described.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/prot.10556

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 228

Metadata

Authors
Moult, J., Fidelis, K., Zemla, A., & Hubbard, T.
Venue
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003
Volume
53
Issue
S6
Pages
334-339
ISSN
  • 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0134
OpenAlex
W3200464911
Cited by
228
References
3
FWCI
11.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.