Why BGPT?
logo

Find the Strongest Evidence

Compare claims side by side, each linked to experiments, exact reported results, scope, and source.Know what the science actually supports before you trust the answer.

Press Enter ↡ to compare evidence


     Quick Analysis Plan



    The strongest battle-tested evidence is the CASP14 assessment: AlphaFold2 achieved a median S_CASP14 of 2.2 Γ… across 97 targets and enabled molecular replacement solutions for 89 of 97 targets, but accuracy was mainly for single-chain folded domains, with sidechains and dynamic/multi-chain systems remaining unsolved weaknesses .


     Long Analysis Plan



    Core Evidence: CASP14 Benchmark of AlphaFold2

    The most rigorous, externally-validated evidence on AI protein structure prediction comes from the CASP14 community assessment of 97 targets. AlphaFold2 produced the most accurate models for most targets (median S_CASP14 = 2.2 Γ…), and models solved molecular replacement for 89 of 97 targets β€” 26 without any AMPLE truncation β€” demonstrating experimental-level practical utility . Notably, the runner-up (updated trRosetta) already beat CASP13 winners β€” evidence that gains were field-wide, not solely one model. Data and code are openly available for independent verification .

    Battle-Testing: Where the Evidence Breaks

    Assessor-identified blind spots, not marketing claims, define the limits: sidechain accuracy remains the hardest unsolved component; the DipDiff geometry metric can penalize otherwise accurate models; target structures may have been refined post-submission; and AF2 mainly addresses single-chain folded proteins, with generality to multi-chain or dynamic systems untested . A critical, largely unstated bias: CASP targets skew toward soluble, crystallizable proteins, so the headline 89/97 MR success rate should not be extrapolated to membrane proteins or intrinsically disordered regions.

    Improving the Evidence Base

    • Pre-register prospective CASP-style tests on conformational ensembles and multi-chain assemblies, not single conformers.
    • Report sidechain-level error distributions, not only backbone GDT/lDDT-style aggregates.
    • Validate MR-success claims against non-crystallographic ground truths (cryo-EM, NMR) to remove crystal-quality confounding.

    Verdict: The CASP14 evidence is strong, reproducible, and low-conflict-of-interest, but its scope is narrower than headline claims suggest. Confidence: moderate-to-high for single-chain folded domains; low for dynamic, multi-chain, and membrane contexts. What would change this verdict: failure of top methods on a future broad CASP target set, or non-reproducibility of the open data/code.



    Feedback:    

    Updated: October 24, 2026

     Top Data Sources ExportMCP



     Hypothesis Graveyard



    'AI structure prediction is solved' β€” falsified by assessor-documented sidechain errors, single-chain scope, and post-submission target refinement caveats in CASP14 itself.


    'Template-free prediction is fully uncoupled from templates' β€” partially false; CASP14 notes high-accuracy modeling is 'uncoupled from template availability' for targets, but HHsearch template comparisons still influenced evaluation context and some model rankings.

     Science Art


    Best Evidence: AI in Protein Structure Prediction Science Art

     Science Movie



    Make a narrated HD Science movie for this answer ($32 per minute)




     Discussion


    Stay current without chasing every paper.

    Know what changed, what holds up, and what remains uncertain. Every Friday. No ads.


    My BGPT