Evaluation

AlphaFold3 dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2)

Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons

The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion

The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27

The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'

Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38

Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals

Published comparison transcribed from the pinned source; not reproduced.

Evaluation results

1 evaluation · 4 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') · Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)

In source order. Decimals are rounded for display; each value links to the printed value and its source.

Tested configuration	Count (Acceptable quality (0.23 <= DockQ < 0.49); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40)	Count (High quality (DockQ >= 0.80); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40)	Count (Incorrect prediction (DockQ < 0.23); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40)	Count (Medium quality (0.49 <= DockQ < 0.80); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40)
AlphaFold3 (AlphaFold3 accessed as a web service)Evaluation	67	243	158	202

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: AlphaFold3 (AlphaFold3 accessed as a web service)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	67 Count (Acceptable quality (0.23 <= DockQ < 0.49); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source AlphaFold3 dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'AlphaFold3' / 'Acceptable quality', column 'TQ 1–40'
Configuration: AlphaFold3 (AlphaFold3 accessed as a web service)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	243 Count (High quality (DockQ >= 0.80); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source AlphaFold3 dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'AlphaFold3' / 'High quality', column 'TQ 1–40'
Configuration: AlphaFold3 (AlphaFold3 accessed as a web service)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	158 Count (Incorrect prediction (DockQ < 0.23); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source AlphaFold3 dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'AlphaFold3' / 'Incorrect prediction', column 'TQ 1–40'
Configuration: AlphaFold3 (AlphaFold3 accessed as a web service)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	202 Count (Medium quality (0.49 <= DockQ < 0.80); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source AlphaFold3 dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'AlphaFold3' / 'Medium quality', column 'TQ 1–40'

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

Research readiness

0 of 4 readiness checks met. These checks assess whether the evidence supports a reproducible investigation; a source-checked score alone does not meet them.

Readiness checks, gaps and artifacts

Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6 · Evidence verified: Not verified

Evidence incomplete

Replay metrics

Exact outcomes, predictions, identifiers and evaluator are connected.

Missing or unresolved evidence

No verified artifact manifest is linked to this exact record.
File checksums match the recorded files: not yet verified
Predictions are matched to the right samples: not yet verified
Score meaning and direction are confirmed: not yet verified
Metrics are recomputed from the saved predictions: not yet verified

Verified: Not verified

Evidence incomplete

Investigate discrepancies

Replay evidence includes annotations and an assessment of dependence. Unknown independence permits descriptive analysis only.

Missing or unresolved evidence

No verified artifact manifest is linked to this exact record.
File checksums match the recorded files: not yet verified
Predictions are matched to the right samples: not yet verified
Score meaning and direction are confirmed: not yet verified
Metrics are recomputed from the saved predictions: not yet verified
Sample annotations are recorded: not yet verified
Dependence between samples is assessed: not yet verified

Verified: Not verified

Evidence incomplete

Run locally

A pinned recipe describes the inputs, environment and resource requirements.

Missing or unresolved evidence

No verified artifact manifest is linked to this exact record.
File checksums match the recorded files: not yet verified
Predictions are matched to the right samples: not yet verified
Score meaning and direction are confirmed: not yet verified
A pinned run recipe exists: not yet verified
Compute requirements are estimated: not yet verified

Verified: Not verified

Evidence incomplete

Validate independently

Separate data and exposure records support an independent test.

Missing or unresolved evidence

No verified artifact manifest is linked to this exact record.
File checksums match the recorded files: not yet verified
Predictions are matched to the right samples: not yet verified
Score meaning and direction are confirmed: not yet verified
Independent validation data exist: not yet verified
Overlap with training data is checked: not yet verified

Verified: Not verified

Readiness describes the evidence in this release. Availability on your computer is checked separately when an investigation runs. Existing data exposure can prevent independent validation even when files are available.

Artifacts and reproduction

No verified artifact manifest is connected to this record yet. The gaps above identify what is needed before analysis can begin.

Evaluation procedure

Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40')

Configuration: AlphaFold3 (AlphaFold3 accessed as a web service)
Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40')
Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)

origin: Independent external evaluation
configuration: Primary source as retrieved 2026-10-11
protocol id: lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40
dataset version: Not reported
split: PDB dimeric structures released 2022-2024 without close pre-2022 homologues
population: 994 dimers
inputs: Amino-acid sequence only
adaptation: None; tools run as released
metric implementation: Counts of predicted structures per predictive class
aggregation: structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40
budget: Not reported

Metadata review: source checked. Unreported conditions prevent automatic comparisons.

Reproduction

Split: PDB dimeric structures released 2022-2024 without close pre-2022 homologues
Adaptation: None; tools run as released
Scoring implementation: Counts of predicted structures per predictive class

No execution recipe has been verified for this exact configuration and evaluation. A benchmark's general instructions may use different inputs, splits or model settings.

Reproducing this published result requires matching its model configuration, data, split and scorer. Source checking or a successful smoke test does not establish score reproduction.

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.

18 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
Comparison: adaptation None; tools run as released Context-only references	Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins Original source ↗ Table 2, rows for 'AlphaFold3', column 'TQ 1–40' Version: Version of record, NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 2026 (PMC12809598 JATS full text) Retrieved: 2026-10-11T21:30:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.adaptation` Source artifact SHA-256: `aae321d05839186a7595987d05af6e95aec5ac32b93b35c5cf1126902fe798b8` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Inspected artifact
Comparison: aggregation structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 Context-only references	Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins Original source ↗ Table 2, rows for 'AlphaFold3', column 'TQ 1–40' Version: Version of record, NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 2026 (PMC12809598 JATS full text) Retrieved: 2026-10-11T21:30:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.aggregation` Source artifact SHA-256: `aae321d05839186a7595987d05af6e95aec5ac32b93b35c5cf1126902fe798b8` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Inspected artifact
Comparison: budget Not reported Context-only references	Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins Original source ↗ Table 2, rows for 'AlphaFold3', column 'TQ 1–40' Version: Version of record, NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 2026 (PMC12809598 JATS full text) Retrieved: 2026-10-11T21:30:00Z	missing or unspecified No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.budget` Source artifact SHA-256: `aae321d05839186a7595987d05af6e95aec5ac32b93b35c5cf1126902fe798b8` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Inspected artifact
Comparison: dataset version Not reported Context-only references	Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins Original source ↗ Table 2, rows for 'AlphaFold3', column 'TQ 1–40' Version: Version of record, NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 2026 (PMC12809598 JATS full text) Retrieved: 2026-10-11T21:30:00Z	missing or unspecified No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.dataset_version` Source artifact SHA-256: `aae321d05839186a7595987d05af6e95aec5ac32b93b35c5cf1126902fe798b8` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Inspected artifact
Comparison: inputs Amino-acid sequence only Context-only references	Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins Original source ↗ Table 2, rows for 'AlphaFold3', column 'TQ 1–40' Version: Version of record, NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 2026 (PMC12809598 JATS full text) Retrieved: 2026-10-11T21:30:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.inputs` Source artifact SHA-256: `aae321d05839186a7595987d05af6e95aec5ac32b93b35c5cf1126902fe798b8` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Inspected artifact
Comparison: metric implementation Counts of predicted structures per predictive class Context-only references	Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins Original source ↗ Table 2, rows for 'AlphaFold3', column 'TQ 1–40' Version: Version of record, NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 2026 (PMC12809598 JATS full text) Retrieved: 2026-10-11T21:30:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.metric_implementation` Source artifact SHA-256: `aae321d05839186a7595987d05af6e95aec5ac32b93b35c5cf1126902fe798b8` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Inspected artifact
Comparison: population 994 dimers Context-only references	Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins Original source ↗ Table 2, rows for 'AlphaFold3', column 'TQ 1–40' Version: Version of record, NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 2026 (PMC12809598 JATS full text) Retrieved: 2026-10-11T21:30:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.population` Source artifact SHA-256: `aae321d05839186a7595987d05af6e95aec5ac32b93b35c5cf1126902fe798b8` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Inspected artifact
Comparison: protocol id lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Context-only references	Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins Original source ↗ Table 2, rows for 'AlphaFold3', column 'TQ 1–40' Version: Version of record, NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 2026 (PMC12809598 JATS full text) Retrieved: 2026-10-11T21:30:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.protocol_id` Source artifact SHA-256: `aae321d05839186a7595987d05af6e95aec5ac32b93b35c5cf1126902fe798b8` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Inspected artifact
Comparison: split PDB dimeric structures released 2022-2024 without close pre-2022 homologues Context-only references	Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins Original source ↗ Table 2, rows for 'AlphaFold3', column 'TQ 1–40' Version: Version of record, NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 2026 (PMC12809598 JATS full text) Retrieved: 2026-10-11T21:30:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.split` Source artifact SHA-256: `aae321d05839186a7595987d05af6e95aec5ac32b93b35c5cf1126902fe798b8` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Inspected artifact
Origin independent_paper Context-only references	Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins Original source ↗ Table 2, rows for 'AlphaFold3', column 'TQ 1–40' Version: Version of record, NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 2026 (PMC12809598 JATS full text) Retrieved: 2026-10-11T21:30:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.origin` Source artifact SHA-256: `aae321d05839186a7595987d05af6e95aec5ac32b93b35c5cf1126902fe798b8` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Inspected artifact

How to read the evidence

Sources and history

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

1 source record and release history

Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Original source · Version of record, NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 2026 (PMC12809598 JATS full text)

Download this release (gzip)

Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-eval-2-alphafold3-tq-1-40

areas: protein-structure; proteins-complexes
contexts: research
origin: independent_paper
protocol: lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40
version: Primary source as retrieved 2026-10-11
comparison: protocol id: lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40; dataset version: Not reported; split: PDB dimeric structures released 2022-2024 without close pre-2022 homologues; population: 994 dimers; inputs: Amino-acid sequence only; adaptation: None; tools run as released; metric implementation: Counts of predicted structures per predictive class; aggregation: structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40; budget: Not reported
source locator: Table 2, rows for 'AlphaFold3', column 'TQ 1–40'
missing metadata: comparison.budget: reason: unreported; comparison.dataset version: reason: unreported

Related records

Suggest a correction