Configuration

GeoDock (AlphaBind pairwise evaluation)

Configuration of GeoDock: GeoDock interface-stability score derived from ipLDDT features.

Overview

An explanatory profile has not yet been reviewed for this record.

Consult the linked sources for architecture or protocol details. Missing evidence is not evidence of a missing capability.

Evaluations and results

4 evaluations · 4 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

Sorted by Accuracy (pairwise: stronger binder identified within sampled antibody pairs) (higher is better). The best value in each column is highlighted. Decimals are rounded for display; each value links to the printed value and its source.

Tested configuration	Protocol and dataset	Accuracy (pairwise: stronger binder identified within sampled antibody pairs)
GeoDock (AlphaBind pairwise evaluation)Evaluation	AlphaBind TRA held-out antigen, pairwise accuracy, AlphaBind TRA antibody variants (held-out antigen)	51.2% (best in column)
GeoDock (AlphaBind pairwise evaluation)Evaluation	AlphaBind PP489 held-out antigen, pairwise accuracy, AlphaBind PP489 antibody variants (held-out antigen)	50.2%
GeoDock (AlphaBind pairwise evaluation)Evaluation	AlphaBind VHH72 held-out antigen, pairwise accuracy, AlphaBind VHH72 antibody variants (held-out antigen)	49.6%
GeoDock (AlphaBind pairwise evaluation)Evaluation	AlphaBind PEM held-out antigen, pairwise accuracy, AlphaBind PEM antibody variants (held-out antigen)	47.1%

All 4 result rows with coverage, uncertainty and sources

Filter evaluations

Tested model or methodProtocolDatasetEvaluation setupMetricEvidence origin

Applied filters: All linked evaluations

Exact evaluated configurations and original reported results
Tested configuration	Protocol and dataset	Finding	Evidence and details
Configuration: GeoDock (AlphaBind pairwise evaluation)	Protocol: AlphaBind PEM held-out antigen, pairwise accuracy Dataset: AlphaBind PEM antibody variants (held-out antigen)	47.1% Accuracy (pairwise: stronger binder identified within sampled antibody pairs) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The Table 2 footnote says "Values denote chi-squared statistics, with significance levels in parentheses", which contradicts the column headers ("Pairwise accuracy (%)", "Graphinity (%)" and so on), the cell contents (percentages between 47.11 and 74.27) and the body text, which places the chi-squared statistics in Table S1. The records read the cells as accuracies with a p-value, which the headers and body support; the footnote is wrong as printed.A systematic evaluation framework for universal antibody-antigen binding affinity prediction and candidate recommendation · Table 2 footnote Methods, coverage and source GeoDock on AlphaBind PEM (pairwise accuracy) lit-interactions-20261011-mochibind-protocol-alphabind-pem-pairwise-accuracy Aggregation: Not reported A systematic evaluation framework for universal antibody-antigen binding affinity prediction and candidate recommendation · Table 2, row 'PEM', column 'GeoDock (%)'; STAR Methods, 'Cross-antigen evaluation setup'
Configuration: GeoDock (AlphaBind pairwise evaluation)	Protocol: AlphaBind PP489 held-out antigen, pairwise accuracy Dataset: AlphaBind PP489 antibody variants (held-out antigen)	50.2% Accuracy (pairwise: stronger binder identified within sampled antibody pairs) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The Table 2 footnote says "Values denote chi-squared statistics, with significance levels in parentheses", which contradicts the column headers ("Pairwise accuracy (%)", "Graphinity (%)" and so on), the cell contents (percentages between 47.11 and 74.27) and the body text, which places the chi-squared statistics in Table S1. The records read the cells as accuracies with a p-value, which the headers and body support; the footnote is wrong as printed.A systematic evaluation framework for universal antibody-antigen binding affinity prediction and candidate recommendation · Table 2 footnote Methods, coverage and source GeoDock on AlphaBind PP489 (pairwise accuracy) lit-interactions-20261011-mochibind-protocol-alphabind-pp489-pairwise-accuracy Aggregation: Not reported A systematic evaluation framework for universal antibody-antigen binding affinity prediction and candidate recommendation · Table 2, row 'PP489', column 'GeoDock (%)'; STAR Methods, 'Cross-antigen evaluation setup'
Configuration: GeoDock (AlphaBind pairwise evaluation)	Protocol: AlphaBind TRA held-out antigen, pairwise accuracy Dataset: AlphaBind TRA antibody variants (held-out antigen)	51.2% Accuracy (pairwise: stronger binder identified within sampled antibody pairs) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The Table 2 footnote says "Values denote chi-squared statistics, with significance levels in parentheses", which contradicts the column headers ("Pairwise accuracy (%)", "Graphinity (%)" and so on), the cell contents (percentages between 47.11 and 74.27) and the body text, which places the chi-squared statistics in Table S1. The records read the cells as accuracies with a p-value, which the headers and body support; the footnote is wrong as printed.A systematic evaluation framework for universal antibody-antigen binding affinity prediction and candidate recommendation · Table 2 footnote Methods, coverage and source GeoDock on AlphaBind TRA (pairwise accuracy) lit-interactions-20261011-mochibind-protocol-alphabind-tra-pairwise-accuracy Aggregation: Not reported A systematic evaluation framework for universal antibody-antigen binding affinity prediction and candidate recommendation · Table 2, row 'TRA', column 'GeoDock (%)'; STAR Methods, 'Cross-antigen evaluation setup'
Configuration: GeoDock (AlphaBind pairwise evaluation)	Protocol: AlphaBind VHH72 held-out antigen, pairwise accuracy Dataset: AlphaBind VHH72 antibody variants (held-out antigen)	49.6% Accuracy (pairwise: stronger binder identified within sampled antibody pairs) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The Table 2 footnote says "Values denote chi-squared statistics, with significance levels in parentheses", which contradicts the column headers ("Pairwise accuracy (%)", "Graphinity (%)" and so on), the cell contents (percentages between 47.11 and 74.27) and the body text, which places the chi-squared statistics in Table S1. The records read the cells as accuracies with a p-value, which the headers and body support; the footnote is wrong as printed.A systematic evaluation framework for universal antibody-antigen binding affinity prediction and candidate recommendation · Table 2 footnote Methods, coverage and source GeoDock on AlphaBind VHH72 (pairwise accuracy) lit-interactions-20261011-mochibind-protocol-alphabind-vhh72-pairwise-accuracy Aggregation: Not reported A systematic evaluation framework for universal antibody-antigen binding affinity prediction and candidate recommendation · Table 2, row 'VHH72', column 'GeoDock (%)'; STAR Methods, 'Cross-antigen evaluation setup'

Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6.

Use this configuration

How it works, versions and access

Strengths, limitations and unresolved questions

Evidence

Source checking verifies the cited claim or transcription. It does not establish independent reproduction.

Evidence table

Inspect claims, sources and review details

Trace each statement to its source and review. A context-only reference supports the record generally; it does not verify an individual field. Source checking does not reproduce an experiment.

One row per statement and cited source. Multiple citations are not independent evaluations. Shared locators are labelled explicitly.

0 evidence rows matching the loaded filters

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6
Property and statement	Original source and location	Review and provenance

No evidence rows match these filters. Choose another scope or clear the search.

How to read the evidence

Sources and history

Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6 · Record review: source checked

1 source record and release history

A systematic evaluation framework for universal antibody-antigen binding affinity prediction and candidate recommendation · Original source · iScience 2026, 116522; PMC13444443 full-text XML

Download this release (gzip)

Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: lit-interactions-20261011-mochibind-config-geodock-alphabind-pairwise

areas: molecular-interactions; proteins-complexes
contexts: research
method types: supervised_machine_learning
reported name: GeoDock
foundation model eligible: false
parameters: GeoDock interface-stability score derived from ipLDDT features
source locator: Table 2 header and note; STAR Methods
access reuse: Not stated in the source
missing metadata: version: reason: unreported; note: No checkpoint version printed
provenance note: GeoDock as evaluated on AlphaBind pairwise accuracy in the MochiBind study.

Related records

configuration of: GeoDock
system: GeoDock on AlphaBind PEM (pairwise accuracy)
system: GeoDock on AlphaBind PP489 (pairwise accuracy)
system: GeoDock on AlphaBind TRA (pairwise accuracy)
system: GeoDock on AlphaBind VHH72 (pairwise accuracy)

Suggest a correction