3 ms·
I can't square this with the actual competition results. There are tons of targets where AlphaFold2 didn't score over 70%. It was typically only 10% ahead of th
by twic 6y ago
I can't square this with the actual competition results. There are tons of targets where AlphaFold2 didn't score over 70%. It was typically only 10% ahead of the next best program. The metric everyone is looking at, GDT_TS, gives marks for atoms that are within eight angstroms of where they should be - by experimental standards, eight angstroms is a huge miss! There are targets where on some important metrics, like C-alpha RMSD, AlphaFold2 did worse than another program!
- refulgentis 6y agoYou're making extremely strong claims, counter to scientists with no incentive to praise Google being quoted with reactions such as expecting a mass exodus from computational biology. I, and I assume we, are open to hearing more but I'm not sure cherry-picking a couple examples is enough to credit your claims contra theirs. For instance, the gentlemen who was presented as a skeptic is instead shown to also say it's solved, and in reply to this you say "everyone" is looking at the "wrong" metric, and it allows errors of 8+ atom widths - he notes the median error is 2.1 angstroms, or 2.1 atom widths.
- byecomputer 6y agoI feel like there's a certain je ne sais quoi to the comments Google employees write where I can just immediately sense them without even needing to check.
- sbergot 6y agoYou are not helping your case by calling out people based on where they work instead of what they say. Refulgentis is raising factual points.