Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The article presents the assessment of disorder region predictions submitted to CASP10. The evaluation is based on the three measures tested in previous CASPs: (i) balanced accuracy, (ii) the Matthews correlation coefficient for the binary predictions, and (iii) the area under the curve in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of predictions using probability annotation. We also performed new analyses such as comparison of the submitted predictions with those obtained with a Naïve disorder prediction method and with predictions from the disorder prediction databases D2P2 and MobiDB. On average, the methods participating in CASP10 demonstrated slightly better performance than those in CASP9.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Monastyrskyy et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: