Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 305

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

Pcons: A neural‐network–based consensus predictor that improves fold recognition

Open access
Lundström, Jesper, Rychlewski, Leszek, Bujnicki, Janusz, Elofsson, Arne·2001·Protein Science

Abstract

During recent years many protein fold recognition methods have been developed, based on different algorithms and using various kinds of information. To examine the performance of these methods several evaluation experiments have been conducted. These include blind tests in CASP/CAFASP, large scale benchmarks, and long‐term, continuous assessment with newly solved protein structures. These studies confirm the expectation that for different targets different methods produce the best predictions, and the final prediction accuracy could be improved if the available methods were combined in a perfect manner. In this article a neural‐network‐based consensus predictor, Pcons, is presented that attempts this task. Pcons attempts to select the best model out of those produced by six prediction servers, each using different methods. Pcons translates the confidence scores reported by each server into uniformly scaled values corresponding to the expected accuracy of each model. The translated scores as well as the similarity between models produced by different servers is used in the final selection. According to the analysis based on two unrelated sets of newly solved proteins, Pcons outperforms any single server by generating ∼8%–10% more correct predictions. Furthermore, the specificity of Pcons is significantly higher than for any individual server. From analyzing different input data to Pcons it can be shown that the improvement is mainly attributable to measurement of the similarity between the different models. Pcons is freely accessible for the academic community through the protein structure‐prediction metaserver at http://bioinfo.pl/meta/ .

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 · 10.1110/ps.08501

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 305

Metadata

Authors
Lundström, J., Rychlewski, L., Bujnicki, J., & Elofsson, A.
Venue
Protein Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-11
Volume
10
Issue
11
Pages
2354-2362
ISSN
  • 0961-8368 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-896X
OpenAlex
W2062123114
Cited by
305
References
3
FWCI
7.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pcons: A neural‐network–based consensus predictor that improves fold recognition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1110/ps.08501
The paper
Lundström, J., Rychlewski, L., Bujnicki, J., & Elofsson, A. (2001). Pcons: A neural‐network–based consensus predictor that improves fold recognition. Protein Science. https://doi.org/10.1110/ps.08501

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.