Table 1.
Ranking of near-native decoys on all-atom versus coarse-grain decoys datasets
| Top percentage rank |
Dockground_ decoy_ filtered |
CCDMintseris_ filtered (acceptable) |
CCDMintseris_ filtered (medium quality) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PISA | CIPSDF | PISA + CIPSDF | ZRANK | CIPSCF | ZRANK + CIPSCF | ZRANK | CIPSCF | ZRANK + CIPSCF | |
| Top 1% | 5 | 6 | 8 (63) | 8 | 3 | 5 (18) | 14 | 2 | 7 (22) |
| Top 10% | 44 | 56 | 65 (90) | 36 | 32 | 42 (66) | 57 | 40 | 57 (78) |
| Top 20% | 64 | 73 | 79 (94) | 48 | 53 | 62 (90) | 71 | 64 | 77 (90) |
| Top 30% | 74 | 82 | 87 (98) | 60 | 69 | 76 (96) | 80 | 80 | 88 (94) |
| Top 40% | 81 | 89 | 90 (98) | 67 | 78 | 81 (96) | 86 | 90 | 93 (98) |
| Top 50% | 87 | 94 | 95 (100) | 74 | 85 | 88 (98) | 86 | 93 | 96 (98) |
Entries represent the percentage of near-native decoys placed on each top percentage rank. The number reported in parentheses is the percentage of complexes having at least one near-native decoy placed on each top % rank. Bold values indicate best performance.