Cited by 545RNA and protein synthesis mechanismsMachine Learning in BioinformaticsProtein Structure and Dynamics

Comparing two K-category assignments by a K-category correlation coefficient

Gorodkin, J.·2004·Computational Biology and Chemistry

Abstract

Predicted assignments of biological sequences are often evaluated by Matthews correlation coefficient. However, Matthews correlation coefficient applies only to cases where the assignments belong to two categories, and cases with more than two categories are often artificially forced into two categories by considering what belongs and what does not belong to one of the categories, leading to the loss of information. Here, an extended correlation coefficient that applies to K-categories is proposed, and this measure is shown to be highly applicable for evaluating prediction of RNA secondary structure in cases where some predicted pairs go into the category "unknown" due to lack of reliability in predicted pairs or unpaired residues. Hence, predicting base pairs of RNA secondary structure can be a three-category problem. The measure is further shown to be well in agreement with existing performance measures used for ranking protein secondary structure predictions. Server and software is available at http://rk.kvl.dk/.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2004.09.006

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The phi coefficient has no canonical 3×3 analog; the multi-class MCC extension of Gorodkin (2004) does not reduce to either Pearson on a chosen encoding or to Kendall's τb.

    “The phi coefficient has no canonical 3 × 3 analog; the multi-class MCC extension of Gorodkin (2004) does not reduce to either Pearson on a chosen encoding or to Kendall's τ b .”

    From Agreement Metrics for LLM-as-Judge Evaluation: What to Report and Why (2026) · cites this paper as Gorodkin (2004)

  • MCC was re-proposed by Baldi and colleagues in 2000 as a standard performance metric for machine learning with a natural extension to the multiclass case.

    “MCC was re-proposed by Baldi and colleagues [39] in 2000 as a standard performance metric for machine learning with a natural extension to the multiclass case [40].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gorodkin, J.
Corresponding author
Gorodkin, J.
Venue
Computational Biology and Chemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-12
Volume
28
Issue
5-6
Pages
367-374
ISSN
1476-9271 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059185913
Cited by
545
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Computational Biology and Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion)
Funders
Teknologi og Produktion, Det Frie Forskningsråd
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
Keywords
Matthews correlation coefficient, multi-class classification, forecast evaluation, RNA secondary structure prediction, secondary structure prediction, performance indicators
MeSH terms
Molecular Sequence Data, Proteins, RNA, Databases, Factual, Sequence Alignment, Protein Structure, Secondary, Computational Biology, Base Pairing

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