Beyond Pearson: Why Spearman Correlation is Powering the Next Generation of Protein Function Prediction

Abstract

This article explores the critical role of Spearman's rank correlation coefficient in advancing the field of protein function prediction. As computational models grow increasingly complex—integrating sequences, structures, and multi-modal data—the non-parametric, rank-based nature of Spearman correlation has become a gold standard for robust performance evaluation. We cover its foundational principles, methodological applications in state-of-the-art models like S3F and PRESCOTT, strategies for optimization and troubleshooting, and its use in rigorous model validation and benchmarking. Aimed at researchers and drug development professionals, this review synthesizes how Spearman correlation provides crucial insights into a model's ability to capture the true functional landscape of proteins, ultimately guiding more reliable predictions for therapeutic design and functional annotation.

What is Spearman Correlation and Why Does it Matter for Protein Science?

In the quantitative analysis of scientific data, correlation statistics are indispensable for measuring the strength and direction of associations between two variables. While the Pearson correlation coefficient is the most widely known measure, it is based on parametric assumptions that are not always met by real-world research data, particularly in emerging fields like bioinformatics and protein science. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (denoted as ρ or rs*) serves as a nonparametric alternative that measures the strength and direction of monotonic relationships between two ranked variables, whether the relationship is linear or not [1] [2].

This nonparametric measure is named after Charles Spearman, who developed the coefficient in 1904 [2]. The fundamental principle behind Spearman's correlation is that it assesses how well an arbitrary monotonic function can describe the relationship between two variables, without making any assumptions about the frequency distribution of the variables [3]. This characteristic makes it particularly valuable for analyzing data that may not satisfy the strict normality assumption required for Pearson's correlation, or when dealing with ordinal data or numerical data with outliers.

The application of Spearman's correlation has become increasingly prominent in protein function prediction research, where researchers often need to evaluate the association between computational predictions and experimental measurements. For instance, in benchmarking protein mutation effect predictors or evaluating protein complex structure modeling accuracy, Spearman's correlation provides a robust statistical framework for validation [4] [5] [6]. Its rank-based nature makes it less sensitive to outliers and skewed distributions, which are common in high-throughput biological data.

Theoretical Foundation of Spearman's Rank Correlation

Key Concepts and Mathematical Formulation

Spearman's rank correlation operates on a simple yet powerful premise: it converts raw numerical values into ranks and then measures the correlation between these ranks. The conversion to ranks eliminates the influence of extreme values and normalizes the distribution, making the method resistant to outliers that could disproportionately influence parametric measures [7]. The mathematical formulation of Spearman's correlation depends on whether there are tied ranks in the data.

For data without tied ranks, the Spearman coefficient is calculated using the following formula:

$$rs = 1 - \frac{6 \sum di^2}{n(n^2 - 1)}$$

Where:

• $d_i$ = the difference between the two ranks for each observation
• $n$ = the number of observations [1] [2]

When tied ranks exist (i.e., when two or more values in either variable are identical), the formula requires adjustment. In such cases, Spearman's correlation is calculated similarly to Pearson's correlation but applied to the rank values:

$$rs = \frac{\operatorname{cov}(RX, RY)}{\sigma{RX} \sigma{R_Y}}$$

Where:

• $\operatorname{cov}(RX, RY)$ = the covariance of the rank variables
• $\sigma{RX}$ and $\sigma{RY}$ = the standard deviations of the rank variables [2]

The resulting coefficient ranges from -1 to +1, where +1 indicates a perfect monotonic increasing relationship, -1 indicates a perfect monotonic decreasing relationship, and 0 suggests no monotonic relationship [8].

Assumptions and Appropriate Use Cases

Unlike parametric correlation measures, Spearman's rank correlation has minimal assumptions, which contributes to its versatility across diverse research contexts:

• Ordinal, Interval, or Ratio Data: The test requires that both variables are at least ordinal, meaning the values can be ranked in a meaningful order. It can also be applied to interval and ratio data [1] [7].
• Monotonic Relationship: The variables should have a monotonic relationship, meaning that as one variable increases, the other tends to either consistently increase or decrease, though not necessarily at a constant rate [1] [8].
• Paired Observations: Each observation must consist of two paired values, with both measurements coming from the same experimental unit or subject [9].

A key advantage of Spearman's correlation is its appropriateness for analyzing monotonic but nonlinear relationships. For example, in protein fitness prediction, the relationship between computational scores and experimental measurements may follow a logarithmic or asymptotic pattern rather than a straight line, making Spearman's correlation particularly suitable for evaluation [6].

Table 1: Comparison of Correlation Coefficient Types

Feature	Spearman	Pearson	Kendall
Data Type	Ordinal, interval, ratio	Interval, ratio	Ordinal, interval, ratio
Relationship Type	Monotonic	Linear	Monotonic
Assumptions	Monotonic relationship, paired observations	Linear relationship, normality, homoscedasticity	Monotonic relationship, paired observations
Sensitivity to Outliers	Low	High	Low
Interpretation	Strength/direction of monotonic relationship	Strength/direction of linear relationship	Probability of concordant vs discordant pairs

Comparative Analysis of Correlation Coefficients

Spearman vs. Pearson Correlation

The choice between Spearman and Pearson correlation depends largely on the nature of the data and the research question. While both coefficients range from -1 to +1 with similar interpretations for direction and strength, they differ fundamentally in their underlying assumptions and applications.

Pearson correlation measures the degree of linear relationship between two continuous variables and assumes that both variables are normally distributed, the relationship is linear, and the data is homoscedastic (constant variance) [3]. Violations of these assumptions can lead to misleading correlation values. In contrast, Spearman correlation assesses monotonic relationships without distributional assumptions, making it more robust for non-normal data or in the presence of outliers [7].

The practical distinction becomes evident when analyzing relationships that are consistent in direction but not necessarily linear. For example, in protein fitness prediction, the relationship between evolutionary scale model (ESM) scores and experimental fitness measurements may follow a monotonic but curvilinear pattern. In such cases, Spearman correlation would more accurately capture the association than Pearson correlation [6].

Spearman vs. Kendall's Tau

Kendall's tau is another nonparametric rank-based correlation measure that, like Spearman, assesses monotonic relationships. While both are valid for ordinal data and robust to outliers, they differ in computational approach and interpretation. Spearman's coefficient is based on the difference in ranks, while Kendall's tau calculates the probability of concordant versus discordant pairs [3].

In research applications, Spearman correlation is generally more sensitive to detecting monotonic relationships, especially with larger sample sizes, while Kendall's tau is often preferred for smaller samples or when there are many tied ranks. In protein research, Spearman remains more widely reported, particularly in benchmark studies comparing computational predictions with experimental measurements [5] [6].

Table 2: Guidelines for Selecting Correlation Coefficients in Protein Research

Research Scenario	Recommended Coefficient	Rationale
Comparing model predictions with experimental measurements	Spearman	Less sensitive to outliers and non-linear monotonic relationships
Assessing linear relationship between structural features	Pearson	Appropriate when linearity and normality assumptions are met
Small sample size with many tied ranks	Kendall	More accurate with limited data and tied values
Evaluating docking scores with binding affinity	Spearman	Binding relationships often follow monotonic but non-linear patterns

Application in Protein Function Prediction Research

Benchmarking Protein Mutation Effect Predictors

In protein engineering and variant interpretation, accurately predicting the functional consequences of mutations remains a fundamental challenge. The VenusMutHub benchmark study exemplifies how Spearman correlation is employed to evaluate 23 computational models across 905 small-scale experimental datasets spanning 527 proteins with diverse functional properties including stability, activity, binding affinity, and selectivity [5].

In this rigorous assessment, Spearman correlation serves as the primary metric for comparing model predictions with direct biochemical measurements rather than surrogate readouts. This approach provides a more accurate assessment of model performance for specific molecular functions. The rank-based nature of Spearman correlation is particularly valuable in this context because different predictors may output scores on different scales, and the relationship between prediction scores and experimental measurements may not be linear across the entire range of effects.

The benchmark results reveal substantial variation in model performance across different protein properties, with certain models excelling at predicting stability effects while others perform better for binding affinity predictions. This nuanced evaluation, facilitated by Spearman correlation, provides practical guidance for selecting appropriate prediction methods in protein engineering applications where accurate prediction of specific functional properties is crucial [5].

Evaluating Protein Complex Structure Modeling

Recent advances in protein complex structure prediction have generated powerful new tools such as AlphaFold-Multimer, AlphaFold3, and DeepSCFold. In the comprehensive evaluation of these methods, Spearman correlation has emerged as a key statistical measure for assessing model accuracy.

DeepSCFold, a recently developed pipeline for improving protein complex structure modeling, uses sequence-based deep learning to predict protein-protein structural similarity and interaction probability. When benchmarked on protein complex targets from CASP15, DeepSCFold demonstrated significant improvements in accuracy, achieving an 11.6% and 10.3% improvement in TM-score compared to AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively [4].

The critical role of Spearman correlation in this evaluation extends beyond global structure assessment to local interface accuracy. For antibody-antigen complexes from the SAbDab database, DeepSCFold enhanced the prediction success rate for antibody-antigen binding interfaces by 24.7% and 12.4% over AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively [4]. These improvements were quantified using Spearman correlation between predicted and actual structural quality metrics, highlighting how this statistical measure enables precise comparison of methodological advances in this rapidly evolving field.

Assessing Structure-Based Fitness Prediction

The application of Spearman correlation in protein fitness prediction has revealed important insights about the relationship between structural features and protein function. In a systematic exploration of zero-shot structure-based protein fitness prediction, researchers used Spearman correlation to evaluate how different modeling choices affect downstream fitness prediction accuracy [6].

This research examined the performance of structure-based models on the ProteinGym benchmark, which contains deep mutational scanning (DMS) substitution assays measuring quantitative protein functions across different taxonomies and function types. The findings demonstrated that the choice of protein structure (predicted versus experimental) significantly impacts prediction accuracy, with AlphaFold2 predicted structures achieving higher Spearman correlation than experimental structures in 74.5% of monomeric proteins and 80% of multimeric proteins [6].

Furthermore, the analysis revealed challenges in predicting fitness consequences for intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs), which lack a fixed 3D structure. The study found that 28% of unique UniProt IDs in ProteinGym are proteins annotated with disordered regions in sequences covered by DMS assays. These disordered regions adversely affected prediction accuracy across all model types, highlighting an important limitation in current structure-based prediction approaches that researchers quantified using Spearman correlation [6].

Experimental Protocols for Correlation Analysis

Protocol 1: Benchmarking Computational Models

Objective: To evaluate the performance of protein mutation effect predictors using Spearman correlation between computational predictions and experimental measurements.

Materials and Methods:

• Dataset Curation: Collect small-scale experimental data from published literature and public databases, ensuring direct biochemical measurements rather than surrogate readouts. The VenusMutHub study utilized 905 datasets spanning 527 proteins across diverse functional properties [5].
• Model Selection: Include computational models representing various methodological paradigms, such as sequence-based, structure-informed, and evolutionary approaches. The benchmark should encompass both established and newly developed predictors.
• Prediction Generation: Run each model on the curated datasets using standardized input formats and parameter settings to ensure comparable results.
• Correlation Calculation: Compute Spearman correlation coefficients between model predictions and experimental measurements for each protein and functional property.
• Statistical Analysis: Compare correlation coefficients across models and protein properties using appropriate statistical tests to determine significant differences in performance.
• Visualization: Create scatter plots with ranked data to visually inspect monotonic relationships and identify potential outliers or nonlinear patterns.

Interpretation: Higher Spearman correlation values indicate better model performance. However, researchers should also consider the confidence intervals and p-values associated with each correlation coefficient to assess statistical significance.

Protocol 2: Evaluating Structure-Function Relationships

Objective: To assess the relationship between protein structural features and functional measurements using Spearman correlation.

Materials and Methods:

• Structural Feature Extraction: Calculate relevant structural parameters (e.g., solvent accessibility, secondary structure, residue depth, B-factors) from experimental or predicted structures.
• Functional Data Collection: Obtain quantitative functional measurements for protein variants, preferably from standardized assays such as deep mutational scanning.
• Data Integration: Map structural features to corresponding functional measurements, ensuring proper alignment of sequence positions.
• Rank Transformation: Convert both structural features and functional measurements to rank values, handling ties appropriately by assigning average ranks.
• Correlation Analysis: Compute Spearman correlation between structural features and functional measurements across all variants.
• Stratified Analysis: Perform subgroup analyses based on protein regions (e.g., ordered vs. disordered regions, binding interfaces vs. solvent-exposed surfaces) [6].

Interpretation: Significant Spearman correlations suggest monotonic relationships between structural features and function. Positive correlations indicate that higher-ranked structural values associate with higher-ranked functional measurements, while negative correlations suggest inverse relationships.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Protein Correlation Analysis

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Example
ProteinGym Benchmark	Standardized platform for evaluating fitness predictions	Assessing model performance on DMS assays [6]
AlphaFold2/3	Protein structure prediction	Generating structural features for correlation analysis [4] [6]
DeepSCFold	Protein complex structure modeling	Predicting protein-protein interaction interfaces [4]
VenusMutHub	Curated benchmark for mutation effect predictors	Comparing model performance across diverse protein properties [5]
STRING Database	Protein-protein interaction network data	Source for combined score prediction in PPI networks [10]

Workflow Visualization

Spearman Correlation Analysis Workflow

Spearman's rank correlation coefficient provides a robust, nonparametric method for assessing monotonic relationships between variables, making it particularly valuable in protein research where data often violate parametric assumptions. Its application in benchmarking protein mutation effect predictors, evaluating structure modeling accuracy, and assessing structure-function relationships has established it as an essential statistical tool in computational biology and bioinformatics.

The continued development of protein prediction models and the expansion of experimental datasets will further reinforce the importance of Spearman correlation in validating computational methods. As the field advances toward more integrated multi-modal approaches, this nonparametric measure will remain crucial for objectively comparing model performance and driving progress in protein function prediction research.

In the data-driven world of protein bioinformatics, accurately evaluating computational predictions against experimental results is paramount. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (ρ) serves as a fundamental statistical metric for this purpose, measuring the strength and direction of monotonic relationships between two ranked variables. Unlike Pearson's correlation, which assesses linear relationships, Spearman's ρ evaluates whether one variable tends to increase as another increases, without requiring the relationship to be linear [2]. This makes it particularly valuable for analyzing complex biological relationships in protein fitness landscapes and Deep Mutational Scanning (DMS) assays, where relationships are often monotonic but not necessarily linear.

The calculation of Spearman's ρ involves converting raw data points into ranks and assessing how well the relationship between these ranks can be described by a monotonic function. For a dataset without tied ranks, the coefficient is calculated as ρ = 1 - (6∑dᵢ²)/(n(n²-1)), where dᵢ represents the difference between the two ranks for each observation, and n is the sample size [11]. The resulting value ranges from +1 for a perfect positive monotonic relationship to -1 for a perfect negative relationship, with 0 indicating no monotonic association [2]. This statistical power has established Spearman's correlation as a cornerstone metric in protein function prediction research, enabling robust benchmarking of computational methods against experimental data.

The Role of Spearman Correlation in Protein Fitness Landscape Analysis

Mapping Sequence to Function in Fitness Landscapes

Protein fitness landscapes represent the complex relationship between protein sequence and function, where each point in sequence space maps to a fitness value representing a measurable property like catalytic activity, thermostability, or binding affinity [12]. Navigating these landscapes efficiently requires accurate computational models that can predict the functional consequences of mutations. Spearman's correlation provides a crucial validation metric for assessing how well these predictions correlate with experimental measurements, guiding protein engineers toward beneficial mutations.

Machine learning approaches have revolutionized our ability to infer sequence-function relationships from experimental data. These models employ various architectures including multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs), convolutional neural networks (CNNs), recurrent neural networks (RNNs), and transformers [12]. As these models generate fitness predictions for thousands of variants, Spearman's correlation offers a non-parametric measure to evaluate how well the predicted fitness rankings align with experimentally determined rankings, enabling researchers to select the most reliable models for protein engineering applications.

Benchmarking Predictive Models with Spearman Correlation

In protein fitness prediction, Spearman's correlation is frequently employed to benchmark computational methods against experimental data. For instance, the VenusMutHub benchmark study evaluated 23 computational models across diverse protein properties including stability, activity, binding affinity, and selectivity [5]. This comprehensive assessment utilized small-scale experimental datasets featuring direct biochemical measurements rather than surrogate readouts, providing a rigorous evaluation framework where Spearman correlation helped identify the most appropriate prediction methods for specific protein engineering applications.

The GCPNet-EMA method, a geometric message passing neural network for protein structure accuracy estimation, demonstrates the application of Spearman correlation in benchmarking. In rigorous computational benchmarks, this method demonstrated significantly higher correlation with ground-truth measures of structural accuracy compared to baseline state-of-the-art methods, with Spearman correlation being one key metric for evaluating multimer structure accuracy estimation [13]. Similarly, SPIRED-Fitness, an end-to-end framework for predicting protein structure and fitness from single sequences, employs correlation metrics to validate its performance against experimental data [14].

Deep Mutational Scanning (DMS) and Correlation Analysis

Fundamentals of DMS Workflows

Deep Mutational Scanning (DMS) has emerged as a powerful high-throughput approach for mapping protein fitness landscapes by experimentally measuring the functional effects of thousands of mutations in parallel [15]. The standard DMS workflow involves four critical steps: (1) generating a comprehensive library of genetic variants through saturation mutagenesis or error-prone PCR; (2) subjecting the library to functional selection that links genotype to phenotype; (3) using next-generation sequencing to count variants before and after selection; and (4) analyzing the data to calculate enrichment or fitness scores for each mutation [15]. This process generates massive datasets quantifying the functional impact of mutations, providing ideal ground-truth data for validating computational predictions.

The quality of DMS data hinges on several technical considerations often overlooked. Library quality and bias must be carefully controlled, as uneven variant distribution in the initial library can skew results. The stringency of selection pressure requires optimization—overly stringent selection may only identify top variants while weak selection fails to distinguish functional from non-functional variants. Additionally, sufficient sequencing depth and error correction strategies like Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs) are essential for accurate variant quantification [15]. These factors directly impact the reliability of fitness scores used in Spearman correlation analysis.

DMS Data as a Benchmark for Computational Methods

DMS data provides the experimental foundation for evaluating computational protein fitness predictors. The rise of multi-task learning approaches that leverage DMS data from multiple sources has further emphasized the importance of robust correlation metrics [16]. These methods aim to learn general representations of protein fitness that transfer across proteins and functions, with Spearman correlation serving as a key metric for evaluating their performance on held-out test data.

The application of DMS extends across various protein engineering scenarios, including mapping antibody-antigen interfaces with single-residue resolution, predicting viral evolution by identifying escape mutations, and guiding protein engineering efforts by providing a comprehensive roadmap of mutations that enhance stability, activity, or binding affinity [15]. In each application, Spearman correlation provides a standardized way to assess how well computational predictions match experimental results, enabling data-driven protein design.

Comparative Performance of Protein Fitness Prediction Methods

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Protein Structure and Fitness Prediction Methods

Method	Type	Key Features	Reported Performance
GCPNet-EMA	Geometric neural network	Uses 3D graph representations with scalar and vector features	>10% higher correlation vs. ground-truth per-residue accuracy vs. AlphaFold 2 [13]
SPIRED-Fitness	End-to-end framework	Integrates structure prediction with fitness estimation	Comparable to state-of-the-art with 5x faster inference [14]
GeoFitness	Structure-based	Uses features from AlphaFold-predicted structures	Improves prediction of mutational effects on fitness [14]
EnQA-MSA	Accuracy estimation	Leverages multiple sequence alignments	Baseline for tertiary structure EMA [13]
AF2-plDDT	Accuracy estimation	AlphaFold 2's predicted lDDT	Lower correlation with ground-truth vs. GCPNet-EMA [13]

Table 2: Evaluation Metrics for Protein Structure Accuracy Estimation Methods

Method	Per-Residue Correlation	Per-Model Correlation	Inference Speed	Training Efficiency
GCPNet-EMA	>10% higher than baseline	>6% higher than baseline	47% faster	-
SPIRED	-	-	~5x acceleration	≥10x reduction in training cost
ESMFold	High accuracy	High accuracy	Moderate	High resource requirement
OmegaFold	Comparable to SPIRED	Comparable to SPIRED	Moderate with recycling	-

Experimental Protocols for Method Evaluation

Standardized Benchmarking Frameworks

Rigorous evaluation of protein fitness prediction methods requires standardized benchmarking frameworks. The VenusMutHub benchmark addresses this need by providing 905 small-scale experimental datasets curated from published literature and public databases, spanning 527 proteins across diverse functional properties including stability, activity, binding affinity, and selectivity [5]. These datasets feature direct biochemical measurements rather than surrogate readouts, offering a more rigorous assessment of model performance for protein engineering applications where predicting specific molecular functions is crucial.

For tertiary structure estimation, researchers typically adopt standardized test datasets and computational metrics to ensure comparable evaluations. Standard practice involves reporting mean squared error (MSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and Pearson's correlation coefficient at per-residue and per-model levels [13]. For multimer structure accuracy estimation, common metrics include per-target Pearson's correlation and Spearman's correlation (SpearCor), the latter being defined as 1 - (6∑dᵢ²)/(n(n²-1)), where dᵢ represents the difference between the ranks of ground-truth and predicted values [13].

Data Processing and Analysis Workflow

DMS-Correlation Analysis Workflow

The experimental workflow for evaluating protein fitness predictors follows a systematic process as illustrated in Figure 1. The process begins with experimental data generation through DMS, involving mutant library generation, functional selection, and next-generation sequencing to calculate variant frequencies and fitness scores [15]. In parallel, computational predictions are generated for the same variants using the methods being evaluated. Both experimental fitness scores and computational predictions undergo rank transformation before conducting Spearman correlation analysis to evaluate method performance.

This workflow highlights the importance of consistent data processing to ensure fair comparisons between methods. The use of rank transformation makes Spearman correlation particularly valuable for protein fitness prediction, as it reduces the impact of outliers and non-normal data distributions that commonly occur in biological measurements. This property ensures robust performance evaluation even when the relationship between predicted and experimental values follows a monotonic but non-linear pattern.

Essential Research Reagents and Tools

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Protein Fitness Landscapes and DMS Assays

Reagent/Resource	Function	Application in Protein Fitness Analysis
Saturation Mutagenesis Libraries	Generates comprehensive variant collections	Creates input libraries for DMS experiments [15]
Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms	Quantifies variant frequency	Measures enrichment before/after selection in DMS [15]
Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs)	Error correction for sequencing	Distinguishes true variants from PCR/sequencing errors [15]
Protein Language Models (ESM)	Learns evolutionary information	Provides sequence representations for fitness prediction [14]
AlphaFold Protein Structure Database	Source of predicted structures	Provides structural features for methods like GeoFitness [13] [14]
Deep Mutational Scanning Datasets	Experimental fitness measurements	Serves as ground truth for model training and validation [16]

Spearman's rank correlation coefficient provides an essential statistical framework for evaluating protein fitness prediction methods in the rapidly advancing field of protein bioinformatics. Its ability to assess monotonic relationships without assuming linearity makes it particularly suitable for analyzing complex sequence-function relationships in protein fitness landscapes and DMS data. As computational methods continue to evolve, with approaches like GCPNet-EMA and SPIRED-Fitness offering improved correlation with experimental measurements, Spearman's correlation remains a fundamental metric for benchmarking progress and guiding method selection.

The integration of advanced machine learning architectures with rich biological data represents the future of protein fitness prediction. As these methods become more sophisticated, their ability to capture complex relationships in protein fitness landscapes will continue to improve. Spearman correlation will play a crucial role in validating these advances, ensuring that computational predictions accurately reflect biological reality, and ultimately accelerating the engineering of novel proteins with tailored functions for biotechnology and medicine.

The Role of Correlation Metrics in Standardized Benchmarks (e.g., ProteinGym)

In the field of protein fitness prediction, the proliferation of machine learning models has created an urgent need for standardized and rigorous benchmarking. ProteinGym addresses this need as a large-scale and holistic set of benchmarks specifically designed for protein fitness prediction and design, curating over 250 standardized deep mutational scanning (DMS) assays spanning millions of mutated sequences [17] [18]. Within this framework, correlation metrics serve as the fundamental quantitative measures for evaluating model performance, with Spearman's rank correlation emerging as the primary metric for assessing predictive accuracy across diverse biological contexts [19]. This guide examines the central role of these metrics within ProteinGym, providing researchers with methodological insights and comparative performance data to navigate this critical benchmarking resource.

ProteinGym Benchmark Composition and Design

ProteinGym consolidates an extensive collection of experimental data and model predictions to facilitate comprehensive comparisons of mutation effect predictors. The benchmark's architecture encompasses several key components:

• DMS Assays: The substitution benchmark includes ~2.7 million missense variants across 217 DMS assays, while the indel benchmark covers ~300k mutants across 74 DMS assays [18]. These assays span five principal functional readouts: organismal fitness, enzymatic activity, stability, binding affinity, and expression levels [19].

• Clinical Variants: The benchmark incorporates annotated human clinical variants, including 2,525 clinical proteins for substitutions and 1,555 for indels, providing complementary data to the DMS measurements [18].

• Stratification System: ProteinGym implements a sophisticated stratification protocol that groups performance by MSA depth (Low: Neff/L <1, Medium: 1-100, High: >100), mutation depth (single, double, triple), taxonomic origin, and functional categories [19]. This enables granular analysis of model strengths and weaknesses across different biological contexts.

The benchmark employs a zero-shot evaluation principle, where models are not fine-tuned on the assay data used for evaluation, ensuring a fair comparison of their inherent predictive capabilities [19]. This rigorous design makes ProteinGym particularly valuable for assessing how well models generalize to novel protein families and functions.

Correlation Metrics in ProteinGym: Methodologies and Applications

Primary Metric: Spearman's Rank Correlation

Spearman's rank correlation (ρ) serves as the primary performance metric in ProteinGym for DMS benchmarks [19]. This non-parametric measure assesses how well the predicted fitness scores rank mutants compared to their experimental rankings, without assuming a linear relationship between variables. The metric is calculated as the Pearson correlation between the rank values of the predicted and experimental scores.

The mathematical formulation for fitness score prediction follows two main conventions in ProteinGym:

• Likelihood Ratio (Autoregressive models): Fx = log[P(xmut)/P(xwt)] [19]
• Log-Odds (Masked Language models): F̂(S^mt,S^wt) = Σ[i∈M] [logP(si^mt|S\M) - logP(si^wt|S\M)] [19]

Spearman correlation is particularly well-suited for protein fitness prediction because it focuses on the ordinal relationship between predictions and experimental results, which is often more biologically relevant than exact numerical accuracy. A higher Spearman correlation indicates that a model better captures the relative functional impacts of mutations, which is crucial for prioritizing variants in protein engineering pipelines.

Complementary Performance Metrics

While Spearman correlation is the primary ranking metric, ProteinGym employs several additional metrics to provide a comprehensive assessment of model performance:

• AUC (Area Under the ROC Curve): Evaluates binary classification performance for beneficial/deleterious mutation prediction, with binarization thresholds set manually or at the median [18] [19].

• MCC (Matthews Correlation Coefficient): Assesses the quality of binary classifications, particularly useful for imbalanced datasets [18] [19].

• NDCG (Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain): Evaluates the quality of top-ranked predictions, emphasizing the accuracy of the highest-scoring variants [18] [19].

• Top-10% Recall: Measures the fraction of true top-10% experimental variants captured in the predicted top-10% [19].

• MSE (Mean Squared Error): Used primarily in supervised learning settings to measure the average squared difference between predicted and experimental values [18].

These complementary metrics address different aspects of model performance, from overall ranking accuracy to specific utility in real-world protein engineering scenarios where identifying top-performing variants is paramount.

Experimental Protocols and Aggregation Methods

ProteinGym implements standardized protocols to ensure consistent and reproducible model evaluation:

• Variant Preprocessing: Silent variants are omitted, duplicates are averaged, and variants without measurements are dropped from analysis [19].

• Aggregation Methodology: Performance metrics are aggregated by UniProt ID to avoid biasing results toward proteins with multiple DMS assays, then averaged across proteins and functional categories [18] [19].

• Stratified Reporting: Results are systematically broken down by functional category, MSA depth, taxonomic kingdom, and mutation depth to reveal performance patterns [19].

• Statistical Robustness: The benchmark provides bootstrapped standard errors for aggregated metrics to reflect variance with respect to individual assays [18].

This meticulous approach ensures that performance comparisons reflect true methodological differences rather than artifacts of evaluation methodology.

Performance Comparison Across Model Architectures

The table below summarizes the performance of major model classes on the ProteinGym substitution benchmark, demonstrating how Spearman correlation reveals architectural advantages across different functional contexts:

Table 1: Spearman Correlation (ρ) Across Model Families on ProteinGym Substitution Benchmarks

Model/Modality	Mean ρ	Stability	Binding	Key Characteristics
ESM2 OFS-PP (Indels)	0.574	0.582	~0.53	Sequence-only, autoregressive
S3F (Seq+Str+Surf)	0.470	-	-	Integrates sequence, structure, and surface features
EvoIF-MSA (Ensemble)	0.518	-	-	Fuses within-family and cross-family evolutionary information
SCISOR (Indels)	0.573	-	-	Diffusion-based indel prediction
ESM-1v NLR-tuned	0.396	-	-	Fine-tuned with negative log-likelihood ratio
ESM-2 650M (Zero-shot)	0.414	-	-	Large-scale protein language model
VenusREM	State-of-the-art	-	-	Retrieval-enhanced, multimodal integration

Note: Performance values are compiled from the ProteinGym leaderboard and associated publications [19] [20].

The data reveals several important patterns. First, multi-modal approaches that intelligently combine sequence, structure, and evolutionary information (e.g., EvoIF-MSA, VenusREM) generally achieve superior performance compared to unimodal methods [21] [19] [20]. Second, specialized architectures for indel prediction (e.g., SCISOR) can achieve performance competitive with substitution prediction, despite the greater complexity of modeling length-altering mutations [19].

Performance Stratification by Biological Context

The table below illustrates how model performance varies across different biological contexts, highlighting the importance of stratified benchmarking:

Table 2: Performance Stratification by Protein Function and MSA Depth

Model Category	Stability	Enzymatic Activity	Binding Affinity	Low MSA Depth	High MSA Depth
Sequence-Based	Moderate	Variable	Moderate	Weaker	Stronger
Structure-Based	Strong	Moderate	Strong	More Robust	Strong
Evolution-Based	Moderate	Strong	Strong	Weaker	Strongest
Multi-Modal	Strongest	Strongest	Strongest	Most Robust	Strongest

Note: Patterns are synthesized from performance breakdowns reported in benchmark analyses [19] [20].

This stratification reveals critical limitations and strengths across methodological paradigms. Structure-based methods demonstrate particular advantage for stability prediction, where physical constraints play a dominant role, while evolution-based approaches excel for enzymatic activity and binding, where evolutionary conservation provides strong signals [19]. Importantly, multi-modal models show the most consistent performance across contexts, particularly for low MSA depth proteins where evolutionary information is scarce [21] [20].

Experimental Workflow and Research Reagents

The following diagram illustrates the standard experimental workflow for benchmarking protein fitness predictors using ProteinGym:

Diagram 1: ProteinGym Benchmarking Workflow (Width: 760px)

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The table below details key resources available through ProteinGym for conducting comprehensive fitness prediction benchmarks:

Table 3: ProteinGym Research Reagent Solutions

Resource	Description	Utility in Fitness Prediction	Access Method
DMS Substitution Benchmarks	217 assays, ~2.7M variants [18]	Primary evaluation data for substitution effects	Zenodo/ProteinGym website
DMS Indel Benchmarks	74 assays, ~300k variants [18]	Specialized evaluation of insertion/deletion effects	Zenodo/ProteinGym website
Zero-shot Model Scores	Predictions from 79 models on DMS substitutions [17]	Baseline comparisons and ensemble methods	ProteinGym R package [17]
Multiple Sequence Alignments	Jackhmmer/UniRef100 MSAs for DMS assays [18] [19]	Evolutionary context and co-evolutionary signals	Zenodo download [18]
AlphaFold2 Structures	Predicted structures for 197 proteins [17]	Structural features for geometry-aware models	ProteinGym R package [17]
Clinical Variant Benchmarks	Pathogenic/benign classifications from clinical sources [18]	Assessment of clinical variant effect prediction	Zenodo download [18]

These resources collectively provide the foundation for rigorous, reproducible benchmarking across diverse methodological approaches, from sequence-only models to complex multi-modal architectures.

Methodological Implementation Guide

Implementing Spearman Correlation for Fitness Prediction

For researchers implementing Spearman correlation within protein fitness prediction pipelines, the following technical considerations are essential:

• Variant Scoring: For zero-shot evaluation, compute fitness scores using established conventions appropriate to the model architecture:

  • Autoregressive models: Fx = log[P(xmut)/P(xwt)] [19]
  • Masked Language models: F̂(S^mt,S^wt) = Σ[i∈M] [logP(si^mt|S\M) - logP(si^wt|S\M)] [19]

• Correlation Calculation: Use standard statistical libraries (e.g., scipy.stats.spearmanr in Python) to compute the rank correlation between predicted scores and experimental measurements across all variants in an assay.

• Aggregation Protocol: Follow ProteinGym's standardized aggregation method:

  • Compute Spearman correlation for each DMS assay independently
  • Average correlations at the UniProt ID level (not by individual variant)
  • Calculate final performance as the mean across proteins [19]

• Stratification: Report performance stratified by functional category, MSA depth, and taxonomic group to provide nuanced insights into model capabilities and limitations.

Advanced Multi-Modal Integration

Leading-performing models like EvoIF and VenusREM demonstrate the power of integrating complementary information sources:

Diagram 2: Multi-Modal Predictor Architecture (Width: 760px)

The EvoIF framework exemplifies this approach by combining: (i) within-family profiles from retrieved homologs using sequence similarity searches (e.g., HHblits) or structure similarity searches (e.g., Foldseek), and (ii) cross-family structural-evolutionary constraints distilled from inverse folding logits [21]. This fusion of complementary evolutionary signals achieves state-of-the-art performance while using only 0.15% of the training data required by larger models [21].

Similarly, VenusREM implements a retrieval-enhanced architecture that integrates sequence, structure, and evolutionary information through disentangled multi-head cross-attention layers, demonstrating that explicit incorporation of homologous sequences significantly boosts prediction accuracy [20].

ProteinGym has established itself as the definitive benchmarking platform for protein fitness prediction, with Spearman's rank correlation serving as its central metric for model evaluation. The benchmark's rigorous design, comprehensive dataset coverage, and sophisticated stratification protocols provide researchers with unparalleled insights into model performance across diverse biological contexts.

The empirical evidence consistently demonstrates that multi-modal integration of sequence, structure, and evolutionary information yields superior performance across functional categories, with models like EvoIF and VenusREM establishing new state-of-the-art benchmarks [21] [19] [20]. However, performance stratification reveals that no single approach dominates across all biological contexts, highlighting the continued need for specialized methods tailored to specific protein families, functions, and data availability conditions.

As the field advances, ProteinGym's standardized evaluation framework and correlation-driven assessment methodology will continue to play a crucial role in guiding the development of more accurate, robust, and biologically-informed fitness prediction models, ultimately accelerating progress in protein engineering and therapeutic development.

Spearman Correlation in Action: Driving Modern Prediction Models and Workflows

In the field of computational biology, accurately modeling the protein fitness landscape is crucial for designing novel functional proteins. The fitness landscape represents a multivariate function that describes how mutations impact protein fitness, and accurately modeling these relationships enables more effective protein engineering with desired traits [22]. However, a significant challenge persists: the scarcity of experimentally collected functional labels relative to the vastness of protein sequence space [22]. This scarcity has prompted the development of self-supervised protein representation learning approaches for predicting mutation effects.

Spearman's rank correlation coefficient has emerged as a critical evaluation metric in this domain because it assesses a model's ability to correctly rank the functional impact of protein variants, which is often more important than predicting absolute values for practical applications like protein engineering. The metric measures how well a model can prioritize beneficial mutations over deleterious ones, making it particularly valuable for zero-shot fitness prediction where models must generalize to unseen mutations without task-specific training [23] [24]. Within this context, the Sequence-Structure-Surface Fitness (S3F) model represents a significant advancement in multi-scale representation learning, achieving state-of-the-art performance on standardized benchmarks as measured by Spearman's correlation [25] [22].

Experimental Protocols and Benchmarking Frameworks

ProteinGym Benchmark Suite

The ProteinGym benchmark serves as the primary evaluation framework for assessing protein fitness prediction models, comprising 217 substitution deep mutational scanning (DMS) assays and encompassing over 2.4 million mutated sequences across more than 200 diverse protein families [22]. This extensive benchmark provides a standardized platform for comparing model performance using Spearman's correlation as a key metric. In DMS experiments, fitness is quantitatively measured as the relative change in a variant's abundance from pre-selection to post-selection populations, normalized to the change in the wild-type's abundance [23]. The calculation is expressed as:

$$ F(S^{\text{mt}}, S^{\text{wt}}) = \log\left(\frac{N{\text{post}}^{\text{mt}}/N{\text{pre}}^{\text{mt}}}{N{\text{post}}^{\text{wt}}/N{\text{pre}}^{\text{wt}}}\right) $$

where a positive fitness value indicates a beneficial mutation, a negative value indicates a deleterious mutation, and a value near zero suggests a neutral effect on protein function [23].

S3F Model Architecture and Training Protocol

The S3F framework implements a sophisticated multi-scale representation learning approach through these key methodological components:

• Sequence Representation: Utilizes embeddings from protein language models (pLMs) like ESM-2-650M, which are pre-trained on massive protein sequence databases using masked language modeling objectives [26].
• Structure Encoder: Incorporates Geometric Vector Perceptron (GVP) networks to process protein backbone structures, enabling message passing among spatially proximate residues [22].
• Surface Encoder: Models protein surfaces as point clouds and facilitates message passing between neighboring points to capture detailed surface topology features critical for biomolecular interactions [22].
• Pre-training Strategy: The complete model is pre-trained using a residue type prediction objective on the CATH dataset, enabling zero-shot prediction of mutation effects without requiring DMS-specific training [26].

The S3F implementation builds upon a foundational Sequence-Structure Fitness Model (S2F) by augmenting it with specialized surface representations, creating a comprehensive multi-scale architecture [22].

Comparative Performance Analysis

Quantitative Benchmark Results

Table 1: Performance comparison of protein fitness prediction models on ProteinGym benchmark

Model	Architecture Type	Spearman Correlation	Key Features
S3F	Multi-scale (Sequence-Structure-Surface)	State-of-the-art	Integrates sequence, structure, and surface representations
S2F	Hybrid (Sequence-Structure)	Competitive	Combines sequence representations with backbone structure
EvoIF	Lightweight evolutionary	State-of-the-art/Competitive	Integrates within-family profiles and cross-family structural constraints
AlphaMissense	Hybrid sequence-structure	High (but not SOTA)	Incorporates structural prediction losses with weak supervision
SaProt	Structure-based	Limited improvement over sequence	Utilizes structure tokens from Foldseek
Sequence-only pLMs	Sequence-based	Baseline performance	Family-agnostic models trained on evolutionary sequences

The S3F model establishes new state-of-the-art performance on the ProteinGym benchmark, demonstrating an 8.5% improvement in Spearman's rank correlation compared to previous leading methods when augmented with alignment information [22]. This significant enhancement underscores the value of integrating complementary protein representations across multiple biological scales. The model achieves this superior performance while maintaining substantially fewer trainable parameters compared to other baselines, reducing pre-training time to several days on commodity hardware [22].

Performance Across Functional Categories

Table 2: Performance breakdown by protein function categories

Function Category	S3F Performance	Improvement over Sequence-Only	Key Insights
Structure-dependent functions	Highest improvement	Significant	Surface topology critical for accuracy
Binding interfaces	Strong improvement	Substantial	Enhanced representation of interaction surfaces
Enzymatic activity	Consistent gains	Moderate	Captures active site geometry constraints
Stability assays	Reliable prediction	Moderate	Backbone structure features particularly valuable
All assays combined	State-of-the-art	8.5% overall	Comprehensive multi-scale advantage

Breakdown analysis across different types of assays reveals that S3F's multi-scale learning approach provides consistent improvements, with particularly enhanced performance for structure-related functions where surface topology plays a critical role [22]. The incorporation of structure and surface features demonstrates the capacity to correct biases inherent in sequence-based methods and improves the model's ability to capture epistatic effects—interactions between mutations that are difficult to model using sequence information alone [22].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key research reagents and computational tools for protein fitness prediction

Resource	Type	Function	Access
ProteinGym Benchmark	Dataset	217 DMS assays with over 2.4M variants	Publicly available
CATH Dataset	Training Data	Protein domain structures for pre-training	Publicly available
ESM-2-650M	Protein Language Model	Provides sequence representations	Public weights
Geometric Vector Perceptron (GVP)	Architecture	Encodes protein backbone structure	Open source
S3F Codebase	Model Implementation	Multi-scale fitness prediction	GitHub repository
Foldseek	Tool	Structure similarity search for MSA construction	Publicly available

Architectural Framework and Signaling Pathways

S3F Multi-Scale Integration Workflow

Protein Fitness Prediction Experimental Pipeline

Discussion: Implications for Protein Engineering and Drug Development

The superior performance of S3F as measured by Spearman correlation demonstrates the critical importance of multi-scale protein representation for accurate fitness prediction. By integrating sequence, structure, and surface information within a unified framework, S3F captures complementary biological constraints that operate at different spatial scales [22]. This approach addresses a fundamental limitation of previous methods that either focused on individual modalities or achieved only incremental improvements when combining sequence and structure alone.

The practical implications of these advances are substantial for researchers and drug development professionals. Accurate zero-shot fitness prediction enables computational screening of protein variants at scale, reducing reliance on expensive and time-consuming experimental assays. The S3F model's ability to prioritize mutations with beneficial functional effects accelerates protein engineering pipelines for therapeutic development, enzyme design, and biomaterial innovation [25] [22]. Furthermore, the model's capacity to capture epistatic interactions provides insights into the complex sequence-function relationships that govern protein evolution and function.

Future directions in this field will likely focus on extending multi-scale frameworks to incorporate additional biological information, such as dynamic conformational changes, co-factor interactions, and environmental conditions. As protein language models and structure prediction methods continue to advance, integration with comprehensive multi-scale approaches like S3F promises to further enhance our ability to navigate protein fitness landscapes and design novel proteins with precision.

The ability to accurately predict the fitness effects of protein mutations is a cornerstone of modern biology, with profound implications for understanding genetic diseases and engineering novel enzymes. However, the proliferation of computational predictors has made the assessment of their respective benefits a formidable challenge, often mired by evaluations on distinct, limited datasets. The ProteinGym benchmark has emerged as a critical solution to this problem, providing a large-scale, standardized platform for holistic comparison [18] [27] [28]. By encompassing millions of mutated sequences from diverse protein families and incorporating clinical annotations, ProteinGym enables robust validation of predictors across different functional regimes. This guide objectively compares the performance of various methodological paradigms using experimental data from ProteinGym, providing researchers with a data-driven framework for selecting appropriate tools. The analysis is framed within the broader thesis that Spearman correlation with deep mutational scanning (DMS) measurements provides a reliable assessment of a model's ability to capture the underlying protein fitness landscape, an assertion increasingly supported by independent clinical validations [29].

The ProteinGym Benchmarking Framework

Architecture and Composition

ProteinGym is a comprehensive collection of benchmarks specifically designed for protein fitness prediction and design. Its architecture is built around two primary components: a substitution benchmark comprising approximately 2.7 million missense variants across 217 DMS assays and 2,525 clinical proteins, and an indel benchmark including around 300,000 mutants across 74 DMS assays and 1,555 clinical proteins [18]. Each processed dataset within these benchmarks provides the mutant description, the full mutated sequence, a continuous DMS score representing experimental measurement (where higher values indicate higher fitness), and a binarized fitness classification [18]. This extensive scale and standardization address critical limitations of previous benchmarks that relied on limited sets of proteins, enabling performance evaluation across a vastly diverse sequence-space [28].

A key innovation of ProteinGym is its robust evaluation framework, which employs multiple metrics tailored to different application scenarios. For DMS benchmarks in the zero-shot setting, performance is assessed using Spearman correlation, Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG), Area Under the Curve (AUC), Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), and Top-K recall [18]. These metrics are aggregated by UniProt ID to prevent bias toward proteins with multiple DMS assays and by different functional categories [18]. This multi-faceted approach provides a more holistic view of model capabilities compared to single-metric evaluations.

Experimental Validation and Clinical Relevance

The experimental foundation of ProteinGym rests on Deep Mutational Scanning (DMS) assays, which provide high-throughput functional measurements for thousands of variants in parallel [28]. A significant advantage of using DMS data for benchmarking is the substantial reduction in data circularity problems that plague many clinical variant assessments [29]. Unlike clinical datasets that rely on previously assigned pathogenicity labels (often used to train predictors), DMS datasets provide independent functional measurements, minimizing variant-level circularity [29].

Recent research has demonstrated a strong correspondence between VEP performance on DMS-based benchmarks and their accuracy in clinical variant classification, particularly for predictors not directly trained on human clinical variants [29]. This correlation validates the use of ProteinGym as a reliable proxy for assessing the potential real-world utility of fitness predictors in medical contexts. The benchmark includes diverse functional assay types categorized as either direct assays (measuring the target protein's ability to carry out native functions like interactions with natural partners) or indirect assays (commonly growth rate experiments where the measured attribute is not directly controlled by the target protein) [29].

The following diagram illustrates the end-to-end ProteinGym evaluation workflow:

Performance Comparison of Methodological Paradigms

Quantitative Benchmark Results

ProteinGym has enabled the systematic comparison of over 70 diverse models from various computational biology subfields [27] [28]. The table below summarizes the performance of major methodological paradigms based on aggregated results from the substitution benchmark:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Protein Fitness Prediction Paradigms on ProteinGym Substitution Benchmark

Methodological Paradigm	Representative Models	Average Spearman Correlation	Key Strengths	Notable Limitations
Structure-Based Models	ESM-IF1, ProteinMPNN, MIF	Variable (see Table 2)	Excellent for stability assays; captures spatial constraints	Performance depends on structure quality; struggles with disordered regions
Protein Language Models	ESM2, TranceptEVE	Varies by model size and training	Strong generalizability; requires no explicit MSA	Lower performance on targets with deep MSAs
Evolutionary Models	EVE, DeepSequence	High for conserved proteins	Powerful co-evolutionary signals	Performance drops with shallow MSAs
Inverse Folding Methods	ESM-IF1, ProteinMPNN	Moderate to high	Explicit structure conditioning	Limited by structure availability/quality
Supervised Methods	Various	Context-dependent	Can leverage known assay data	Risk of overfitting; generalizability concerns

The performance hierarchy among these paradigms is context-dependent, varying according to protein taxonomy, multiple sequence alignment (MSA) depth, and functional assay type [6] [28]. For instance, structure-based models particularly excel in predicting stability effects, while evolutionary models show strength in capturing functional constraints in well-conserved protein families.

Case Study: Structure-Based Predictors

Structure-based predictors leverage protein tertiary structure information to assess mutation effects. The advent of accurate structure prediction tools like AlphaFold2 has significantly increased the availability and utility of these methods [6]. Recent benchmarking on ProteinGym reveals several critical insights about this paradigm.

Table 2: Structure-Based Model Performance on Selected ProteinGym Assays

Model	Structural Input	Average Spearman	Ordered Regions Performance	Disordered Regions Performance
ESM-IF1	AlphaFold2 predicted	0.42	High	Significantly reduced
ESM-IF1	Experimental structures	0.38	High	Moderate
ProtSSN	Multimodal (sequence + structure)	0.45	High	Moderate
SaProt	Structure-aware language model	0.43	High	Moderate to low

A critical finding from ProteinGym analyses is that the choice of protein structure significantly impacts prediction accuracy. Contrary to expectations, models using AlphaFold2-predicted structures often achieve higher Spearman correlations than those using experimental structures (74.5% of monomeric assays and 80% of multimeric assays) [6]. This counterintuitive result may stem from predicted structures representing a "consensus" conformation potentially more reflective of the protein's average state in solution.

However, structure-based models face particular challenges with intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs), which lack fixed 3D structures. Approximately 29% of ProteinGym DMS assays involve proteins with disordered regions in the sequenced covered by the assay [6]. These regions affect not only structure-based models but also multi-modal models and protein language models, likely because disordered regions tend to be fast-evolving and less conserved [6]. The following diagram illustrates how disordered regions impact prediction accuracy across different model types:

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized Evaluation Methodology

The ProteinGym benchmarking protocol follows a rigorous, standardized methodology to ensure fair comparison across diverse models. The evaluation process for zero-shot fitness prediction involves several critical stages:

• Data Preparation and Partitioning: The benchmark is stratified by UniProt IDs to avoid biasing results toward proteins with multiple DMS assays. Additional stratification by functional categories (activity, binding, expression, organismal fitness, and stability) ensures balanced assessment across functional domains [18].

• Model Scoring: All models are evaluated on the same set of mutants using a consistent scoring interface. For substitution assays, models predict fitness effects based on the mutant sequence and, where applicable, structural information [18].

• Performance Calculation: The primary metric for DMS benchmarks is Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between predicted scores and experimental measurements. This non-parametric measure assesses how well the model ranks variants by fitness without assuming a linear relationship [18] [29].

• Statistical Aggregation: Performance metrics are aggregated using robust statistical methods that account for variance across individual assays. Bootstrapped standard errors are computed to reflect uncertainty in the aggregated metrics [18].

This methodology specifically addresses limitations of previous benchmarks by including appropriate metrics for both zero-shot and supervised settings, implementing careful aggregation strategies to prevent dataset bias, and providing confidence intervals for performance estimates [18] [28].

Case Study Protocol: Assessing Disordered Region Impact

To illustrate the depth of ProteinGym-enabled analyses, we detail the specific protocol used to assess the impact of intrinsically disordered regions on prediction accuracy [6]:

• Disordered Region Identification:

  • Annotate disordered regions in ProteinGym assay sequences using the DisProt database
  • Calculate disorder content for each protein (percentage of residues in disordered regions)
  • Categorize assays based on whether mutations fall in ordered, disordered, or mixed regions

• Stratified Performance Analysis:

  • Compute Spearman correlations separately for mutations in ordered vs. disordered regions
  • Compare performance differentials across model architectures (structure-based, sequence-based, multi-modal)
  • Statistically assess whether performance differences are significant using paired tests

• Structure Comparison:

  • For proteins with both experimental and predicted structures, calculate structural similarity metrics
  • Correlate structure quality metrics with prediction accuracy differences
  • Examine specific case studies (e.g., α-synuclein, NKX3-1) where structural differences explain performance variations

This protocol revealed that disordered regions negatively impact predictions across all model types, with structure-based models showing the largest performance degradation [6]. The analysis also found that 28% of unique UniProt IDs in ProteinGym are proteins annotated as having disordered regions in regions covered by DMS assays [6].

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

The experimental and computational research in protein fitness prediction relies on a curated set of reagent solutions and tools. The following table details key resources referenced in the ProteinGym benchmark and related studies:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Protein Fitness Prediction

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Primary Function	Application in Benchmarking
Benchmark Platforms	ProteinGym, VenusMutHub, PROBE	Standardized model evaluation	Primary performance assessment on curated datasets [18] [5] [30]
Protein Structure Prediction	AlphaFold2, ESMFold, RoseTTAFold	Generate 3D protein structures	Provide structural inputs for structure-based predictors [6]
Sequence Databases	UniRef30/90, UniProt, BFD, Metaclust	Source of evolutionary information	Construct multiple sequence alignments for co-evolutionary methods [18]
DMS Repositories	MaveDB, ProteinGym raw assays	Experimental fitness measurements	Ground truth for model validation [18] [29]
Clinical Variant Databases	ClinVar, gnomAD, dbNSFP	Expert-curated variant annotations	Clinical benchmarking and validation [18] [29]
Multi-modal Frameworks	DeepSCFold, MMPFP	Integrate sequence and structure data	Advanced prediction combining multiple information sources [4] [31]

These resources collectively enable comprehensive assessment and development of protein fitness predictors. Researchers should select tools based on their specific application requirements, considering factors such as protein family characteristics, available data types (sequence, structure, or both), and computational resources.

The ProteinGym benchmark has established itself as an indispensable resource for validating protein fitness predictions, enabling direct comparison of diverse methodological paradigms on a standardized platform. Through systematic evaluation of over 70 models, several key insights have emerged: (1) model performance is highly context-dependent, varying by protein taxonomy, MSA depth, and functional assay type; (2) structure-based predictors show particular promise but are sensitive to structural accuracy and struggle with disordered regions; (3) multi-modal approaches that intelligently combine sequence and structural information generally provide more robust performance across diverse protein environments; and (4) DMS-based benchmarking using Spearman correlation provides a reliable assessment strategy that correlates well with clinical classification performance for methods not exposed to clinical training data.

As the field advances, several challenges remain, including improved handling of disordered regions, better integration of multi-modal information, and development of more robust evaluation metrics. The continued expansion of ProteinGym with new assays and model submissions will further solidify its role as the gold standard for protein fitness prediction validation, ultimately accelerating both therapeutic development and protein engineering applications.

The accurate prediction of protein structures represents one of the most significant advances in computational biology in recent years. However, the practical utility of these predicted models depends entirely on our ability to assess their quality and reliability. Quality Assessment (QA) methods serve as the critical bridge between raw structural predictions and their meaningful biological application, particularly in protein function prediction research. The Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction (CASP) experiments have been instrumental in driving progress in this field by providing standardized, blind benchmarks for evaluating methodological advancements [32]. These community-wide assessments have created a competitive yet collaborative framework where research groups worldwide test their methods on experimentally determined but unpublished structures, enabling objective comparison of performance and tracking of progress over time.

Within the context of protein function prediction, structural model quality estimation takes on even greater importance. Research has consistently demonstrated that function annotation accuracy is highly dependent on structural model quality, with poor-quality models leading to erroneous functional inferences [33]. This relationship has motivated the development of sophisticated QA methods that can accurately estimate both local (per-residue) and global (per-model) reliability, enabling researchers to identify trustworthy regions of structural models suitable for functional analysis. The integration of these QA methods with function prediction pipelines has become essential for accurate functional annotation, particularly for the millions of proteins that lack experimental characterization but have been modeled computationally [33].

CASP Challenges: The Gold Standard for Method Evaluation

Evolution of CASP Evaluation Frameworks

The CASP challenges have established increasingly sophisticated evaluation methodologies since their inception. CASP employs a time-delayed evaluation strategy where predictors submit their models for proteins whose structures have been experimentally determined but not yet published. The organizers then assess these predictions using standardized metrics against the experimental structures once they become publicly available [32]. This blind assessment approach eliminates bias and ensures objective comparison. The CASP framework has evolved significantly from CAFA1 to CAFA2, with the latter featuring expanded analysis in terms of dataset size, variety, and assessment metrics [32]. This expansion has allowed for more comprehensive benchmarking across different protein classes and structural features.

The evaluation methodology in CASP distinguishes between two fundamental assessment approaches: protein-centric evaluation and term-centric evaluation [32]. The protein-centric approach assesses a method's ability to predict all correct ontological terms for a given protein, treating the problem as a multi-label classification task where the output space is extremely large due to the multitude of possible functional terms. In contrast, the term-centric approach evaluates how well methods can assign a specific ontology term to appropriate protein sequences, essentially framing it as a binary classification problem for each term [32]. Both approaches provide valuable insights, with the former being particularly relevant for comprehensive function prediction and the latter for specific functional attribute identification.

Benchmark Construction and Evaluation Metrics

CASP employs rigorously constructed benchmark sets to ensure fair and comprehensive method assessment. In CAFA2, organizers introduced no-knowledge benchmarks (proteins without any experimental annotations prior to prediction) and limited-knowledge benchmarks (proteins with some prior experimental annotations in certain ontologies but not others) [32]. This distinction allows evaluators to assess how different types of prior knowledge affect prediction performance. Additionally, CAFA2 implemented both full evaluation mode (assessing all benchmark proteins) and partial evaluation mode (assessing only proteins for which a method made predictions), accommodating both general-purpose methods and specialized approaches designed for specific protein classes [32].

The metrics used in CASP evaluation have become increasingly sophisticated. For protein-centric evaluation, precision-recall curves and remaining uncertainty-misinformation curves serve as primary assessment tools [32]. These metrics effectively capture the trade-offs between prediction completeness and accuracy. For quality assessment methods, CASP employs metrics including mean squared error (MSE), mean absolute error (MAE), Pearson's correlation coefficient (Cor), and Spearman's correlation coefficient (SpearCor) [13]. These quantitative measures provide comprehensive insights into different aspects of performance, with Spearman correlation being particularly valuable for assessing the ranking capability of QA methods without assuming linear relationships.

Table 1: Key Evaluation Metrics in CASP Challenges

Metric	Formula	Interpretation	Application in CASP
Mean Squared Error (MSE)	(\frac{1}{n}\sum{i=1}^{n}(yi-\hat{y}_i)^2)	Measures average squared difference between predicted and actual values	Quantifies overall deviation in accuracy estimates
Mean Absolute Error (MAE)	(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}	yi-\hat{y}i	)	Measures average absolute difference	More robust to outliers than MSE
Pearson's Correlation (Cor)	(\frac{\sum{i=1}^{n}(\hat{y}i-\bar{\hat{y}})(yi-\bar{y})}{\sqrt{\sum{i=1}^{n}(\hat{y}i-\bar{\hat{y}})^2\sum{i=1}^{n}(y_i-\bar{y})^2}})	Measures linear relationship between predicted and actual values	Assesses linear association in accuracy scores
Spearman's Correlation (SpearCor)	(1-\frac{6\sum d_i^2}{n(n^2-1)})	Measures monotonic relationship using rank order	Evaluates ranking capability of QA methods

Advanced QA Methods: Architecture and Performance

Geometric Deep Learning Approaches

Recent advances in quality assessment have been driven by geometric deep learning methods that explicitly incorporate three-dimensional structural information. The Geometry-Complete Perceptron Network for EMA (GCPNet-EMA) represents a significant innovation in this space by operating directly on 3D protein structures represented as point clouds [13]. This method featurizes protein structures using both scalar features (e.g., residue types) and vector-valued features (e.g., directional vectors between residues), then applies geometry-complete graph convolution layers to learn expressive representations of protein geometry [13]. This architecture allows GCPNet-EMA to capture complex geometric relationships that traditional methods might miss, leading to more accurate quality estimates.

The performance advantages of this geometric approach are substantial. In rigorous benchmarks, GCPNet-EMA demonstrated 47% faster inference times while achieving over 10% higher correlation with ground-truth measures of per-residue structural accuracy compared to state-of-the-art baseline methods [13]. For tertiary structure assessment, GCPNet-EMA achieved a per-residue Pearson correlation of 0.7058 and per-model correlation of 0.9046, outperforming methods like AlphaFold 2's predicted lDDT (plDDT) and EnQA-MSA [13]. These improvements are particularly notable for multimer structure assessment, where GCPNet-EMA showed 6% higher correlation for per-target accuracy estimation compared to existing methods [13]. The superior performance stems from the method's ability to leverage rich geometric information directly from 3D structures through its physics-inspired architecture.

Statistics-Informed Graph Networks for Function Prediction

Beyond traditional quality assessment, statistics-informed graph networks represent a complementary approach that connects structural quality to functional annotation. PhiGnet utilizes evolutionary data through a dual-channel architecture with stacked graph convolutional networks (GCNs) to predict protein functions from sequence alone [33]. This method incorporates evolutionary couplings (EVCs), which capture relationships between pairwise residues at co-variant sites, and residue communities (RCs), which represent hierarchical interactions among residues [33]. By leveraging these evolutionary signatures, PhiGnet can quantitatively assess the significance of individual residues for specific functions, providing valuable insights even without structural information.

The performance of PhiGnet in identifying functional sites is particularly impressive. When evaluated on nine diverse proteins ranging from approximately 60 to 320 residues with various folds and functions, PhiGnet demonstrated ≥75% accuracy in predicting significant sites at the residue level [33]. For proteins like cPLA2α, Ribokinase, αLA, TmpK, and Ecl18kI, the method achieved near-perfect identification of functional sites compared to experimental determinations [33]. The method generates activation scores for each residue, enabling researchers to pinpoint哪些氨基酸对特定功能有重要贡献。This capability is particularly valuable for interpreting both existing properties and new functionalities of proteins in research and biomedicine, effectively narrowing the sequence-function gap even in the absence of high-quality structural information [33].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Advanced QA and Function Prediction Methods

Method	Approach	Key Innovation	Performance Advantages
GCPNet-EMA	Geometric deep learning	Geometry-complete graph convolution operating on 3D point clouds	47% faster inference; >10% higher correlation for per-residue accuracy [13]
PhiGnet	Statistics-informed graph networks	Dual-channel GCNs leveraging evolutionary couplings and residue communities	≥75% accuracy in identifying functional sites at residue level [33]
AlphaFold 2 plDDT	End-to-end deep learning	Integrated confidence metric from structure prediction network	Baseline performance; sometimes overestimates accuracy [13]
EnQA-MSA	Machine learning with MSA	Combines MSA information with structural features	Previous state-of-the-art; outperformed by GCPNet-EMA [13]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized Evaluation Workflows

The experimental protocols for assessing QA methods have become increasingly standardized to ensure fair comparisons. For tertiary structure assessment, researchers typically employ diverse test datasets that include general tertiary structures, CASP15 multimers, and general multimer structures to evaluate generalizability [13]. The standard protocol involves feeding protein structures into QA methods, which then output estimated accuracy scores (typically predicted lDDT values) for each residue and the entire model. These predictions are compared against ground-truth accuracy measures derived from experimental structures using the metrics outlined in Table 1 [13]. This standardized approach enables direct comparison across methods and tracking of performance improvements over time.

For function prediction assessment, the CAFA experiments employ a time-delayed evaluation protocol where predictors submit functional annotations for proteins that currently lack them, then evaluators assess these predictions after experimental annotations become available [32]. This approach tests the genuine predictive power of methods rather than their ability to recapitulate existing knowledge. The evaluation incorporates both molecular-level assessment (predicting gene ontology terms) and phenotype-level assessment (predicting disease associations using Human Phenotype Ontology) [32]. This comprehensive evaluation framework ensures that methods are tested on biologically meaningful tasks that reflect real-world applications.

Workflow Visualization: From Structure to Function

The relationship between structural quality assessment and function prediction can be visualized as a coordinated workflow where quality estimation enables reliable functional annotation. The following diagram illustrates this integrated process:

Integrated Workflow from Structure to Function

This workflow begins with protein sequence and evolutionary data, progresses through structure prediction and quality assessment, and culminates in function prediction and biological insights. The critical role of QA methods is highlighted in the transition from raw structural models to confidence scores that guide functional annotation.

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Tools for Structural QA

The advancement of structural quality assessment and function prediction relies on a suite of computational tools and resources that serve as essential "research reagents" for the field. These resources enable standardized benchmarking, method development, and practical application. The following table catalogues key resources mentioned in the search results and their roles in facilitating research progress.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Structural QA and Function Prediction

Resource	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to QA/Function Prediction
CASP Checklists	Critical appraisal tool	Systematic framework for evaluating research quality	Provides standardized criteria for assessing methodological rigor [34]
Gene Ontology (GO)	Biomedical ontology	Standardized vocabulary for protein functions	Serves as target vocabulary for function prediction methods [32]
Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO)	Biomedical ontology	Standardized vocabulary for human phenotypes	Enables disease gene prioritization assessment [32]
AlphaFold Protein Structure Database	Structure database	Repository of predicted protein structures	Provides training data and benchmarks for QA methods [13]
BioLip Database	Functional site database	Semi-manually curated ligand-binding sites	Serves as ground truth for functional site prediction [33]
ESM-1b Model	Protein language model	Generates sequence embeddings	Provides input features for methods like PhiGnet [33]

The field of protein structural model quality assessment has evolved from simple consensus methods to sophisticated geometric deep learning approaches that explicitly model 3D structural information. This progress, driven by the competitive yet collaborative framework of CASP challenges, has resulted in methods like GCPNet-EMA that provide faster and more accurate quality estimates than previous state-of-the-art approaches [13]. Concurrently, statistics-informed graph networks like PhiGnet have demonstrated that evolutionary information alone can enable accurate function annotation and functional site identification, achieving ≥75% accuracy in residue-level function prediction [33].

The convergence of these advances—more accurate structural quality assessment and more sophisticated function prediction—creates powerful synergies for biological discovery. As QA methods become better at identifying reliable regions of structural models, and function prediction methods become more precise at mapping these regions to biological activities, researchers gain enhanced capabilities to interpret the vast landscape of uncharacterized proteins. This progress is particularly valuable for drug development, where understanding function through structure enables targeted intervention in disease mechanisms. The continued refinement of these methods, guided by standardized evaluation frameworks like CASP, promises to further accelerate our understanding of the protein universe and its biomedical applications.

The accurate prediction of missense variant effects is a cornerstone of modern genomics, with direct implications for understanding genetic disease and advancing therapeutic development. While early predictors relied primarily on evolutionary conservation from sequence alignments, a new generation of computational models now integrates higher-order biological data, including protein structures and population genetics. This guide objectively evaluates the performance of these advanced tools, with a focus on the PRESCOTT model. We use Spearman's rank correlation coefficient as a primary metric to benchmark predictors against high-throughput experimental data and clinical classifications, providing a rigorous framework for comparison. The data presented herein, drawn from recent independent benchmarks, demonstrates that integrative models like PRESCOTT achieve superior performance, while emerging ensemble methods set a new state-of-the-art.

Proteins are fundamental to cellular processes, and missense mutations can alter their function through diverse mechanisms, such as disrupting stability, allosteric regulation, or protein-protein interactions [35]. Accurately classifying these variants as benign or pathogenic is critical for genomic medicine, yet the vast majority of the over 20,000 proteins in the human proteome remain poorly characterized [35] [36].

The field of variant effect prediction (VEP) has evolved significantly. Initial methods were largely based on evolutionary conservation inferred from multiple sequence alignments (MSAs). The recent paradigm shift incorporates multi-scale biological information:

• Structural Data: The availability of structural models, particularly from AlphaFold, allows predictors to assess the physical and functional context of a residue [35] [4].
• Population Data: Allele frequencies from databases like gnomAD provide a powerful signal for identifying benign variants that are common in human populations [35] [29].
• Deep Learning: Protein language models and other deep learning architectures can learn complex sequence-function relationships from vast datasets [14].

This guide focuses on evaluating models that move "beyond sequence." We use Spearman's correlation with deep mutational scanning (DMS) data—a high-throughput functional assay—as a key objective measure of how well a predictor's scores rank variant effects [29]. This metric is preferred in benchmarks as it mitigates data circularity, a common pitfall where predictors are evaluated on data similar to their training sets [29].

Featured Model: PRECOTT - A Multi-Scale Integrative Approach

PRESCOTT (Population-awaRe Epistatic and StruCtural mOdel of muTational effecTs) is an unsupervised predictor that explicitly integrates evolutionary, structural, and population data [35].

Core Methodology and Workflow

PRESCOTT's algorithm operates on three biological scales:

• Evolutionary Scale: Uses a conservation score (TJET) derived from the phylogenetic tree of homologous sequences, identifying residues conserved across large evolutionary subtrees [35].
• Molecular/Structural Scale: Integrates two structural features:
  • Circular Variance (CV): Measures atomic packing density to identify buried core residues. Mutations in high-CV residues can destabilize the protein [35].
  • Physico-Chemical Properties (PC): Assesses the propensity of a residue to be at a protein interface, identifying surface residues critical for interactions [35]. These features are combined into a MaxScore for each residue, selecting the most relevant structural role.
• Population Scale: Leverages allele frequency data from gnomAD, privileging common variants as benign and allowing its underlying model, ESCOTT, to classify rare variants [35].

The diagram below illustrates how PRESCOTT synthesizes these disparate data types.

Performance on DMS Benchmarks

Independent benchmarking on Deep Mutational Scanning data shows PRESCOTT's competitive performance. The table below summarizes its Spearman correlation for specific oncoproteins, as reported in a 2025 study [37].

Table 1: PRESCOTT Performance on Select DMS Experiments

Protein	DMS Experiment Reference	PRESCOTT Spearman (ρ)
BRCA1	BRCA1HUMANFindlay_2018	~0.55 [37]
MSH2	MSH2HUMANJia_2020	~0.38 [37]
PTEN	PTENHUMANMatreyek_2021	~0.48 [37]

Comparative Performance Analysis

To place PRESCOTT's performance in context, it is essential to compare it against other state-of-the-art predictors. A 2025 benchmark evaluated 97 VEPs against DMS data from 36 human proteins, providing a comprehensive landscape of performance [29].

Key Predictors in the Landscape

• AlphaMissense: A deep learning model that uses AlphaFold-derived structures and is weakly supervised on human population allele frequencies [37] [29].
• ESM1b: An unsupervised predictor based on a protein language model, which learns evolutionary constraints from millions of sequences without explicit alignment [37].
• GEMME, PolyPhen-2, SIFT: Established methods that rely heavily on evolutionary sequence conservation [37].

Benchmarking Results on Clinical and DMS Data

A collaborative 2025 study compared predictors on two key tasks: distinguishing clinically labeled pathogenic/benign variants in oncoproteins, and correlating with DMS experimental data [37]. The following table synthesizes the key findings.

Table 2: Comparative Performance of Unsupervised Predictors

Predictor	Core Methodology	Clinical Classification (AUC on 1068 variants)	Avg. Spearman on DMS (5 oncoproteins, 9 expts.)	Key Strength
APE Score	Ensemble (AlphaMissense, PRESCOTT, ESM1b)	~0.95 [37]	Highest in 6/9 experiments [37]	Robust, consensus performance
PRESCOTT	Structure + Evolution + Population	~0.94 [37]	Competitive, outperforms components in several cases [37]	Integrates population allele frequency
AlphaMissense	Deep Learning + Structure	N/A	Competitive, but outperformed by APE [37]	Powerful structure-informed DL
ESM1b	Protein Language Model	N/A	Best for BRCA2 experiment [37]	Fast, alignment-free inference

Key Insight: The ensemble method APE Score, which linearly combines AlphaMissense, PRESCOTT, and ESM1b, consistently matched or exceeded the performance of its individual components [37]. This demonstrates that these state-of-the-art methods capture complementary information, and their combination yields a more robust and accurate predictor.

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

To ensure reproducibility and transparent comparison, this section outlines the standard experimental protocols used in the cited benchmarks.

Deep Mutational Scanning (DMS) Validation

Objective: To measure the correlation between a predictor's score and empirical functional measurements.

• Data Acquisition: Obtain DMS datasets from public repositories like ProteinGym or MaveDB. These datasets provide functional scores for nearly all possible single amino acid substitutions in a target protein [37] [29].
• Score Extraction: For the protein of interest, gather the predictor's scores for every variant in the DMS dataset.
• Correlation Calculation: Compute the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between the predictor's scores and the experimental DMS scores.
  • Formula: ( \rho = 1 - \frac{6 \sum di^2}{n(n^2 - 1)} ), where ( di ) is the difference between the ranks of the ( i^{th} ) variant in the two lists, and ( n ) is the number of variants [29].
• Aggregate Analysis: Perform this calculation per protein and report the median or mean correlation across a diverse set of proteins to gauge overall performance [29].

Clinical Variant Classification

Objective: To evaluate a predictor's ability to distinguish known pathogenic from benign variants.

• Dataset Curation: Compile a set of variants from databases like ClinVar, with clear pathogenic and benign classifications. It is critical to avoid circularity by ensuring these variants were not used in the predictor's training [37] [29].
• Prediction and Thresholding: Run the predictor on the variant set. Use a pre-defined threshold (e.g., PRESCOTT > 0.5 for pathogenic) or optimize a threshold to classify variants.
• Performance Calculation: Calculate performance metrics such as the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC) to evaluate classification accuracy [37].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The following reagents, databases, and software are fundamental to research and application in this field.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Resources

Name	Type	Function in Research	Access
gnomAD	Population Database	Provides allele frequencies used by PRESCOTT and others to label common variants as benign [35].	https://gnomad.broadinstitute.org/
AlphaFold DB	Structure Database	Source of high-accuracy protein structural models for feature calculation (e.g., CV, PC) or input to predictors [35] [4].	https://alphafold.ebi.ac.uk/
ProteinGym	Benchmark Platform	A curated collection of DMS datasets for large-scale, standardized benchmarking of VEPs [37] [29].	https://proteingym.org/
ClinVar	Clinical Database	Repository of human variants with expert-reviewed clinical significance, used for clinical classification benchmarks [29].	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar/
PRESCOTT Server	Prediction Tool	Web server for predicting the effect of missense variants on any human protein using the PRESCOTT model [35].	http://prescott.lcqb.upmc.fr/

The integration of structural and population data has unequivocally advanced the field of variant effect prediction. As demonstrated by benchmarks, models like PRESCOTT that leverage this multi-scale information achieve high, clinically relevant accuracy, validated through robust metrics like Spearman correlation with DMS data [35] [37].

The emergence of superior ensemble methods like the APE Score points to a future where hybrid approaches will dominate. Future developments will likely focus on:

• Predicting Dynamics: Moving beyond static structures to model dynamic conformational states, which are critical for function for many proteins [38].
• Context-Awareness: Incorporating tissue-specific expression and interaction networks for more nuanced pathogenicity assessment.
• Expanded Experimental Ground Truth: As initiatives like the Atlas of Variant Effects Alliance generate more DMS maps, benchmarks will become even more comprehensive and reliable [29].

For researchers and clinicians, this guide underscores the importance of selecting a predictor whose strengths align with the task—be it high-throughput variant prioritization or clinical classification—and of relying on independent, experimental benchmarks to guide that choice.

Pitfalls and Best Practices: Maximizing the Reliability of Your Correlation Analysis

In the field of spearman correlation protein function prediction research, the accuracy of computational models is foundational to advancing biological understanding and drug discovery. However, this accuracy is perpetually challenged by data-centric pitfalls including sample bias, outliers, and distribution artifacts. This guide objectively compares the performance of various methodologies designed to mitigate these issues, providing a clear framework for researchers and scientists to select optimal tools for their work.

Sample Bias in Protein Function Annotation

Sample bias arises when training data is not representative of the broader population, leading to models that perform poorly on new or underrepresented protein classes. In protein function prediction, this is exacerbated by the Positive-Unlabeled (PU) learning problem, where databases like the Gene Ontology (GO) predominantly contain positive annotations, and the absence of an annotation does not confirm the absence of that function [39].

Comparative Performance of Negative Example Selection Algorithms

To address sample bias, several algorithms have been developed to select reliable negative examples for training machine learning models. The table below summarizes the false negative prediction errors of various algorithms, evaluated using a rigorous temporal holdout on human genome data [39].

Table 1: Comparison of Negative Example Selection Algorithms for Protein Function Prediction

Algorithm Name	Algorithm Type	Reported False Negative Error Rate	Key Principle
SNOB	Novel Heuristic	Lowest among tested heuristics	Selection of Negatives through Observed Bias; an extension of the ALBNeg algorithm [39].
NETL	Novel Heuristic	Lowest among tested heuristics	Negative Examples from Topic Likelihood; uses a Latent Dirichlet Topic model of GO data [39].
AGPS	Protein-Function Specific	Lower than baseline heuristics	Utilizes additional feature data (e.g., Gene Expression, PPI) to predict negative examples [39].
Rocchio	PU-learning (Text-classification adapted)	Higher than SNOB and NETL	A passive 2-step PU algorithm adapted from text classification [39].
1-DNF	PU-learning (Text-classification adapted)	Higher than SNOB and NETL	A passive 2-step PU algorithm adapted from text classification [39].
Baseline Heuristic	Common Heuristic	Highest among tested methods	Using genes with annotations in sibling GO categories as negative examples [39].

Experimental Protocol: Evaluating Negative Example Quality

The performance of the algorithms in Table 1 was benchmarked using the following rigorous protocol [39]:

• Temporal Holdout: Algorithms were trained exclusively on human genome data available up to October 2010.
• Validation: The predicted negative examples from the 2010 data were then validated against updated annotations from October 2012.
• Error Metric: Any gene predicted as a negative example in 2010 that received a positive annotation by 2012 was counted as a false negative prediction error. The average number of these errors across GO categories was used to compare algorithms.

This method mitigates bias by preventing correlation between training and test data, a common issue in cross-validation.

Outlier Detection in Functional Data

Outliers in experimental data, whether from measurement errors or genuine biological anomalies, can disproportionately influence model training and lead to misleading conclusions. Robust statistical techniques are essential for identifying and handling these data points.

The SHASH Transformation for Robust Outlier Detection

A novel approach for outlier detection involves the sinh-arcsinh (SHASH) transformation, a highly flexible family of distributions that can accommodate skew, non-Gaussian tailweights, and combinations of both [40]. This method addresses limitations of older transformations like Box-Cox and Yeo-Johnson, which are equipped to handle only skewness [40].

Table 2: Comparison of Transformation Methods for Outlier Detection

Transformation Method	Handles Skew?	Handles Heavy/Light Tails?	Robust to High Outlier Contamination?	Key Finding
SHASH Transformation	Yes	Yes	Yes (up to 20-30%)	Outperforms existing methods, exhibiting high sensitivity to outliers even at heavy contamination levels [40].
Robust Box-Cox/Yeo-Johnson	Yes	No	Limited (fails with >a few outliers)	Sensitivity suffers when there are more than a few outliers due to flawed initialization [40].
Robust Z-scoring	No	No	No	Designed for near-Normal data; fails with high outlier rates as scale estimates become contaminated [40].

Experimental Protocol: Robust SHASH Transformation

The robust SHASH procedure for transforming data to central normality for outlier detection is as follows [40]:

• Outlier Initialization: A critical first step is to initialize which data points are potential outliers. The method compares conventional robust z-scoring with a novel anomaly detection approach to avoid contamination of the transformation parameters.
• Parameter Estimation: The SHASH transformation parameters (location μ, scale σ, skew ν, and tailweight τ) are estimated. The highly flexible SHASH density is defined by its inverse transformation: X = sinh[τ⁻¹(sinh⁻¹(Z) + ν)], where Z is a standard normal variable [40].
• Iterative Refinement: An iterative maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) procedure is used, which excludes observations identified as likely outliers in each iteration. After each transformation, standard Gaussian quantile cutoffs are applied to update the outlier set.
• Thresholding: Once the data is transformed to approximate central normality, a standard threshold (e.g., the 0.005 and 0.995 quantiles of the N(0,1) distribution) is applied to flag final outliers.

Distribution Artifacts and Nonlinear Relationships

The relationships within biological data, such as protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks, are often complex and nonlinear. Assuming simple, linear dependencies can create artifacts and limit model accuracy.

Enhanced GEP for Nonlinear PPI Score Prediction

To capture the nonlinear dependencies in PPI networks, an improved Gene Expression Programming (DF-GEP) algorithm was developed for predicting the "combined score" of interactions [10]. This score, provided by databases like STRING, is a key feature for predicting protein functional modules.

Table 3: Predictive Performance of DF-GEP vs. Baseline Models

Predictive Model	Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)	Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)	Key Advantage
DF-GEP (Proposed)	Lowest	Lowest	Dynamically adapts to nonlinear trends and contextual dependencies in PPI networks [10].
Random Forest (RF)	Higher than DF-GEP	Higher than DF-GEP	Struggles with data sparsity and noise, leading to poorer generalization [10].
Support Vector Machine (SVM)	Higher than DF-GEP	Higher than DF-GEP	Limited in revealing the nonlinear and complex relationships within protein networks [10].
Traditional Linear Models	Highest	Highest	Oversimplification leads to insufficient feature extraction and weak data representation [10].

Experimental Protocol: DF-GEP for Combined Score Prediction

The methodology for the DF-GEP algorithm involves a comprehensive workflow [10]:

• Data Preparation: Protein-related information and interaction data are extracted from the STRING database. A PPI network is constructed using tools like Cytoscape.
• Feature Selection & Weighting: Key features are mined using Spearman correlation analysis. The Spearman correlation coefficient is preferred for its ability to capture monotonic nonlinear relationships. These features are then weighted using Kernel Ridge Regression (SC-KRR) to generate an optimized dataset [10].
• Model Construction with Dynamic Factors: The core GEP algorithm is enhanced by introducing dynamic factors to optimize four key operations:
  • Selection Operator: Dynamically adjusts individual selection strategy to balance fitness and population diversity.
  • Crossover Operator: Uses a multi-point crossover mechanism with a dynamically adjusted crossover rate.
  • Mutation Operation: Introduces an adaptive mutation mechanism that adjusts the mutation rate and points based on evolutionary stage.
  • Fitness Calculation: Optimized to improve global search capability and convergence performance.

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow of the DF-GEP algorithm for predicting PPI combined scores.

Diagram 1: Workflow of the DF-GEP Algorithm for PPI Score Prediction. The core innovation is the incorporation of Dynamic Factors (in yellow) that adaptively regulate evolutionary operations [10].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

This table details key computational tools and databases essential for research in this field, as featured in the discussed studies.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Protein Function Prediction

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Research
STRING Database	Database	Provides a comprehensive resource of known and predicted Protein-Protein Interactions (PPIs), including a critical "combined score" that integrates evidence from multiple sources [10].
NoGO Database	Database	A curated resource providing lists of high-quality negative examples for Gene Ontology (GO) categories in several well-studied organisms, crucial for mitigating sample bias in machine learning [39].
InterProScan	Software Tool	Scans protein sequences against multiple databases to identify functional domains, motifs, and signatures. Used in methods like DPFunc to guide model attention to key structural regions [41].
Cytoscape	Software Platform	An open-source platform for visualizing complex networks and integrating them with any type of attribute data. Used for constructing and analyzing PPI networks [10].
AlphaFold DB / PDB	Database	Sources of high-accuracy protein 3D structures, either predicted computationally (AlphaFold) or determined experimentally (Protein Data Bank). Serve as critical input for structure-based function prediction methods [4] [41].
CETSA (Cellular Thermal Shift Assay)	Experimental Method	Used for validating direct drug-target engagement in intact cells and tissues, providing quantitative, system-level validation to bridge the gap between computational prediction and cellular efficacy [42].

The Impact of Data Pre-processing and Curation on Correlation Stability

In computational biology, the accurate prediction of protein function is a cornerstone for understanding biological mechanisms and accelerating drug discovery. The stability and reliability of statistical measures used in these predictive models are paramount. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient is a crucial non-parametric measure, valued for its ability to capture monotonic relationships without assuming linearity, making it suitable for complex biological data where interactions are often nonlinear [43] [44]. However, the integrity of this and other correlation metrics is profoundly dependent on the quality and structure of the underlying data.

This guide explores the critical yet often overlooked role of data pre-processing and curation in ensuring correlation stability, with a specific focus on its impact within the field of Spearman correlation protein function prediction research. By objectively comparing the performance of two modern deep learning methods, DPFunc [41] and PhiGnet [33], we demonstrate how foundational data handling directly influences the robustness of the biological insights we derive.

The Critical Role of Pre-processing in Protein Function Prediction

Protein function prediction has evolved from traditional homology-based methods to sophisticated deep learning models that integrate sequence, structure, and evolutionary information [45] [46]. These models, including the recently developed DPFunc and PhiGnet, rely on complex datasets often derived from public repositories like UniProt, which can contain inconsistencies, noise, and missing annotations [47]. Before these data can fuel predictive models, they must undergo rigorous pre-processing, a step that can consume up to 80% of a data scientist's effort [48].

The central challenge is that correlation stability – the consistency of a statistical relationship across different data samples or conditions – is highly susceptible to data quality issues. For instance, the presence of highly similar data points, or "doppelgänger pairs," within a single class (e.g., only in case or control samples) has been shown to dramatically inflate machine learning performance metrics, creating an illusion of accuracy that does not generalize [49]. In one documented case, the presence of just 1-10% doppelgänger pairs artificially boosted classification accuracy by 15-30 percentage points [49]. This form of data leakage causes models to "remember" specific samples rather than learn generalizable patterns, directly compromising the stability of feature-function correlations that the model aims to uncover.

Essential Pre-processing Steps for Stable Correlations

The following workflow outlines a comprehensive data pre-processing pipeline tailored for protein function prediction studies to ensure correlation stability.

Figure 1: A Data Pre-processing Workflow for Correlation Stability. Steps in red are critical for mitigating correlation inflation.

The doppelgänger effect is not merely a theoretical concern; it has practical implications for how we validate protein function predictors. The standard practice of partitioning data into training and test sets based solely on random splits is insufficient if highly similar samples are present in both sets. A more robust protocol, as suggested by Wang et al., involves:

• Calculating pairwise correlation matrices (using Pearson, Spearman, or Kendall's coefficients) between all samples [49].
• Establishing a conservative cutoff based on the maximum correlation observed between any cross-class sample pair (e.g., between a case and control).
• Identifying doppelgänger pairs as any within-class pairs (e.g., case-case or control-control) whose correlation exceeds this established cutoff [49].
• Ensuring during data splitting that doppelgänger pairs are entirely contained within either the training or test set, but never split across them.

Comparative Analysis of Modern Protein Function Predictors

The influence of data curation and pre-processing strategy becomes evident when comparing the architecture and performance of leading protein function prediction methods. The table below summarizes two state-of-the-art approaches.

Table 1: Comparison of Deep Learning-Based Protein Function Predictors

Feature	DPFunc	PhiGnet
Core Innovation	Integrates domain-guided protein structure information [41]	Uses statistics-informed graph networks from evolutionary data [33]
Primary Input	Protein sequence & (predicted) structure [41]	Protein sequence only [33]
Key Pre-processing	Domain detection via InterProScan; Contact map construction [41]	Calculation of evolutionary couplings (EVCs) & residue communities (RCs) [33]
Deep Learning Architecture	Pre-trained language model (ESM-1b) + Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) + Attention mechanism [41]	Dual-channel stacked GCNs processing EVCs and RCs [33]
Interpretability Strength	Detects key residues/regions in structures related to function [41]	Quantifies significance of individual residues for specific functions via activation scores [33]

Performance and Stability Metrics

The performance of these methods is typically evaluated on standardized datasets and measured using metrics from the Critical Assessment of Protein Function Annotation (CAFA), such as the maximum F-measure (Fmax) and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) [41] [46].

Table 2: Exemplary Performance Comparison on Molecular Function (MF) Ontology

Method	Fmax	AUPR	Key to Stability
GAT-GO (Structure-based baseline)	0.50	0.57	(Baseline for comparison)
DPFunc (without post-processing)	0.54	0.61	Domain-guided attention focuses on functionally relevant regions [41].
DPFunc (with post-processing)	0.58	0.62	Post-processing ensures predictions conform to GO term hierarchy [41].

The performance gains of DPFunc are attributed not just to its model architecture but also to its data-centric approach. By using InterProScan to pre-process sequences and identify functional domains, DPFunc guides its attention mechanism to focus on the most relevant parts of the protein structure [41]. This acts as a form of expert-guided feature selection, reducing the noise from non-functional regions and leading to more stable and interpretable function-feature correlations. PhiGnet employs a different strategy, deriving its stability from evolutionary data. By using statistical metrics from multiple sequence alignments (evolutionary couplings and residue communities) as a pre-processed input, it grounds its predictions in evolutionary constraints, which are inherently linked to function [33].

Successful and reproducible protein function prediction relies on a suite of computational tools and data resources.

Table 3: Key Resources for Data Pre-processing and Protein Function Prediction

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Research
InterProScan [41]	Software Tool	Scans protein sequences against domain databases to identify functional domains, guiding model attention.
ESM-1b [41] [33]	Pre-trained Protein Language Model	Generates informative numerical representations (embeddings) of amino acid residues from sequence alone.
AlphaFold2/3 DB [41]	Database & Tool	Provides high-accuracy predicted protein structures for millions of proteins, enabling structure-based prediction.
BioLiP [33]	Database	A semi-manually curated database of biologically relevant ligand-protein binding sites, used for model validation.
SCIKIT-LEARN [48]	Python Library	Provides robust implementations for data scaling (e.g., StandardScaler, RobustScaler) and encoding.
Pairwise Correlation Analysis	Statistical Protocol	Identifies doppelgänger pairs to prevent data leakage and artificial performance inflation [49].

Experimental Protocols for Robust Correlation Analysis

To ensure the stability of Spearman correlations and other metrics in a protein function prediction pipeline, the following experimental protocols are recommended.

Protocol 1: Pre-processing for Domain-Guided Prediction (as in DPFunc)

• Input: Protein amino acid sequence.
• Domain Detection: Run InterProScan to identify and map protein domains to their entries in the database [41].
• Structure Input: Obtain the 3D protein structure, either from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) or via a prediction tool like AlphaFold2 [41].
• Contact Map Construction: Calculate the spatial distance between all amino acid residues in the 3D structure. Represent this as a graph where nodes are residues and edges are based on proximity [41].
• Feature Generation: Use a pre-trained protein language model (e.g., ESM-1b) to generate initial feature vectors for each residue [41].
• Model Training: Feed the domain information, contact map, and residue features into a GNN with an attention mechanism, trained to predict Gene Ontology (GO) terms [41].

Protocol 2: Pre-processing for Evolutionary-Based Prediction (as in PhiGnet)

• Input: Protein amino acid sequence.
• Multiple Sequence Alignment: Gather a large number of homologous sequences and create a multiple sequence alignment.
• Evolutionary Statistics Calculation: From the alignment, compute:
  • Evolutionary Couplings (EVCs): Statistical relationships between pairs of residues that co-vary across evolution [33].
  • Residue Communities (RCs): Groups of residues that show hierarchical cooperative interactions [33].
• Feature Generation: Generate a residue embedding using a model like ESM-1b [33].
• Graph Construction: Model the protein as a graph where nodes are residues (with ESM embeddings) and edges are defined by EVCs and RCs [33].
• Model Training & Interpretation: Process the graph through stacked GCNs. Use Grad-CAM to calculate an activation score for each residue, quantifying its importance for the predicted function [33].

Protocol 3: Validating Correlation Stability via Doppelgänger Removal

• Dataset Partition: Start with your full dataset of protein samples with associated features and function labels.
• Similarity Calculation: Compute a pairwise similarity matrix (e.g., using Spearman correlation) for all protein samples based on their feature vectors [49].
• Cutoff Determination: Find the maximum similarity score between any two proteins that have different functional annotations.
• Doppelgänger Identification: Flag any pair of proteins with the same functional annotation that have a similarity score higher than the cutoff from Step 3 [49].
• Stratified Data Splitting: Perform a standard train/test split, but ensure that if two proteins form a doppelgänger pair, both are assigned to the same set (training or test), never split [49].
• Performance Comparison: Train and evaluate your model on this curated dataset. For comparison, train a model on a dataset where doppelgängers are randomly split. The performance on the curated dataset is a more reliable indicator of real-world utility.

Figure 2: Protocol for Mitigating Doppelgänger Effects in Data Splitting.

The journey to a robust and interpretable protein function prediction model begins long before the training loop. As demonstrated by the comparative analysis of DPFunc and PhiGnet, the choice of pre-processing strategy—whether guided by protein domains, evolutionary statistics, or both—is inextricably linked to model performance and the stability of the inferred correlations. The Spearman correlation between a model's features and its predictions is only as stable as the data upon which it is built. Ignoring critical curation steps, such as the identification and proper handling of doppelgänger pairs, can lead to significantly inflated and misleading performance metrics. Therefore, integrating rigorous pre-processing protocols is not a mere preliminary step but a fundamental component of credible and reproducible computational biology research.

In protein function prediction research, the selection of an appropriate statistical metric is not merely a procedural formality but a fundamental scientific decision that directly influences the interpretation of model performance and the trajectory of research. The CAFA (Critical Assessment of Functional Annotation) challenges, which evaluate computational methods that automatically assign protein function, have highlighted how assessing methods for protein function prediction and tracking progress in the field remain challenging without proper metrics [32]. Within structural biology and bioinformatics, researchers increasingly rely on metrics such as Pearson's correlation, Spearman's correlation, and the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC) to evaluate computational predictions against experimental ground truths. These metrics provide distinct perspectives on model performance, with selection dependent on the specific research question, data characteristics, and the nature of the predictions being evaluated.

The expansion of protein function prediction from sequence-based methods to structure-informed approaches has further complicated metric selection. For instance, methods like PhiGnet utilize statistics-informed graph networks to predict protein functions solely from sequence, requiring metrics that can accurately capture performance across diverse functional categories [33]. Simultaneously, protein structure accuracy estimation methods like GCPNet-EMA rely on correlation metrics to evaluate their per-residue and per-model accuracy estimations [13]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of these three fundamental metrics—Spearman, Pearson, and AUROC—within the context of protein function prediction research, supported by experimental data and practical implementation protocols.

Metric Fundamentals and Theoretical Foundations

Pearson Correlation Coefficient

The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) measures the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two continuous variables. It is defined as the covariance of the two variables divided by the product of their standard deviations. In protein research, Pearson correlation is particularly valuable when assessing relationships where changes in one variable correspond to proportional changes in another. For example, in estimating protein model accuracy, Pearson correlation is used to evaluate how well predicted lDDT scores correlate with actual experimental measurements [13]. The mathematical definition of Pearson's correlation is:

$$ r = \frac{\sum{i=1}^{n}(xi - \bar{x})(yi - \bar{y})}{\sqrt{\sum{i=1}^{n}(xi - \bar{x})^2}\sqrt{\sum{i=1}^{n}(y_i - \bar{y})^2}} $$

where $xi$ and $yi$ are the individual data points, and $\bar{x}$ and $\bar{y}$ are the mean values of the respective datasets.

Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient

Spearman's correlation assesses monotonic relationships (whether linear or not) by measuring how well the relationship between two variables can be described using a monotonic function. Unlike Pearson, Spearman operates on rank-ordered data, making it less sensitive to outliers and non-normal distributions. This property is particularly useful in protein science when evaluating metrics like template modeling score (TM-score) improvements in complex structure prediction, where the relative ranking of methods matters more than the exact linear relationship [4]. Spearman's correlation is calculated as:

$$ \rho = 1 - \frac{6\sum d_i^2}{n(n^2 - 1)} $$

where $d_i$ is the difference between the ranks of corresponding variables, and $n$ is the number of observations.

Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC)

The AUROC measures the performance of binary classification systems by plotting the true positive rate (sensitivity) against the false positive rate (1-specificity) at various threshold settings [50]. In protein function prediction, AUROC is particularly valuable for evaluating methods that assign Gene Ontology terms or predict functional sites, where outcomes are often dichotomous (e.g., functional/not functional, binding/not binding) [33]. The ROC curve itself is a fundamental tool for diagnostic test evaluation, providing a comprehensive visualization for discriminating between normal and abnormal over the entire range of test results [51]. A perfect classifier has an AUROC of 1.0, while random performance yields 0.5.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Statistical Metrics in Protein Research

Metric	Relationship Type	Data Requirements	Robustness to Outliers	Interpretation
Pearson	Linear	Continuous, normally distributed	Low	-1 to 1, with 0 indicating no linear relationship
Spearman	Monotonic	Ordinal, continuous, or ranked	High	-1 to 1, with 0 indicating no monotonic relationship
AUROC	Classification accuracy	Binary outcomes	Moderate	0 to 1, with 0.5 indicating random performance

Application in Protein Function Prediction Research

Protein Structure Accuracy Estimation

In protein structure accuracy estimation, correlation metrics are essential for evaluating how well computational methods predict both local (per-residue) and global (per-model) accuracy. Recent benchmarks of geometry-complete perceptron networks (GCPNet-EMA) demonstrate the differential utility of these metrics. In tertiary structure estimation, Pearson correlation effectively captures the linear relationship between predicted and actual lDDT scores, with GCPNet-EMA achieving a per-residue correlation of 0.7058 and per-model correlation of 0.9056 [13]. These values significantly outperformed AlphaFold 2's plDDT scores, which showed correlations of 0.6351 (per-residue) and 0.8376 (per-model) on the same test dataset.

For multimer structure accuracy estimation, Spearman correlation becomes more appropriate as it evaluates the ranking of models by quality without assuming linearity. In benchmarks evaluating multimer structures, GCPNet-EMA achieved a Spearman correlation of 0.7610, indicating superior ranking performance compared to alternative methods [13]. This demonstrates how Spearman correlation is particularly valuable when the primary concern is method ranking rather than exact quality prediction.

Protein Complex Structure Prediction

The evaluation of protein complex structure prediction methods illustrates the context-dependent selection of performance metrics. DeepSCFold, a pipeline for improving protein complex structure modeling, demonstrated a 11.6% and 10.3% improvement in TM-score compared to AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively, on CASP15 multimer targets [4]. While TM-score itself represents a metric for structural similarity, the evaluation of method performance across diverse complexes relies on correlation metrics to assess consistency.

In this domain, Spearman correlation is particularly valuable when benchmarking across varied complexes with different topological characteristics. The non-parametric nature of Spearman makes it robust to the non-normal distribution of performance scores that often occurs when evaluating methods across diverse protein complexes with different sizes, oligomeric states, and interface properties.

Protein Function Annotation

Protein function annotation represents a domain where AUROC excels as an evaluation metric. Methods like PhiGnet, which utilize statistics-informed graph networks to predict protein functions from sequence, require metrics that can handle binary classification tasks (e.g., assigning Gene Ontology terms or Enzyme Commission numbers) [33]. The CAFA challenges, which represent the largest community-based assessment of protein function prediction methods, employ AUROC alongside other metrics to evaluate performance in predicting biological functions using Gene Ontology and gene-disease associations using Human Phenotype Ontology [32].

PhiGnet demonstrates how deep learning methods can achieve high AUROC values in identifying functional sites at the residue level, with promising accuracy (average ≥75%) in predicting significant sites compared to experimental or semi-manual annotations [33]. This performance is particularly notable given that the method operates solely from sequence information without structural inputs.

Table 2: Experimental Performance of Metrics in Protein Research Applications

Research Application	Method	Pearson	Spearman	AUROC	Reference
Tertiary Structure EMA	GCPNet-EMA	0.7058 (per-residue)	-	-	[13]
Tertiary Structure EMA	AlphaFold2	0.6351 (per-residue)	-	-	[13]
Multimer Structure EMA	GCPNet-EMA	-	0.7610	-	[13]
Function Annotation	PhiGnet	-	-	≥0.75	[33]

Decision Framework and Experimental Protocols

Metric Selection Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the decision process for selecting the appropriate metric in protein function prediction research:

Diagram 1: Metric selection workflow for protein research. This decision process guides researchers in selecting the most appropriate statistical metric based on their data characteristics and research questions.

Experimental Protocol for Metric Evaluation

When benchmarking protein function prediction methods, follow this standardized protocol for metric calculation:

• Data Preparation

  • For correlation metrics (Pearson/Spearman): Ensure paired continuous measurements (e.g., predicted vs. experimental values)
  • For AUROC: Establish binary ground truth labels (e.g., functional/not functional, binding/not binding)

• Metric Calculation

  • Pearson: Assess linear relationship using the standard formula; check normality assumptions
  • Spearman: Rank data before calculation; appropriate for ordinal data or non-normal distributions
  • AUROC: Generate ROC curve by plotting sensitivity vs. 1-specificity across thresholds; calculate area

• Statistical Validation

  • Compute confidence intervals using appropriate methods (e.g., DeLong method for AUROC [51])
  • Perform hypothesis testing (e.g., t-test for Pearson, permutation tests for Spearman)
  • Correct for multiple comparisons when evaluating multiple methods or conditions

• Interpretation and Reporting

  • Contextualize values within domain standards (e.g., CAFA benchmarks [32])
  • Report associated uncertainty measures (confidence intervals, p-values)
  • Acknowledge metric limitations and potential biases

Research Reagent Solutions for Protein Function Prediction

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Protein Function Prediction Studies

Resource Category	Specific Tool	Function in Research	Application Context
Structure Prediction	AlphaFold2 [13]	Protein tertiary structure prediction	Generate structural models for function annotation
Complex Prediction	DeepSCFold [4]	Protein complex structure modeling	Predict quaternary structures and interfaces
Function Annotation	PhiGnet [33]	Statistics-informed function prediction	Assign GO terms and identify functional sites
Accuracy Estimation	GCPNet-EMA [13]	Protein model accuracy estimation	Evaluate reliability of predicted structures
Benchmark Platforms	CAFA Framework [32]	Community-wide assessment	Standardized evaluation of prediction methods
Data Resources	AlphaFold DB [13]	Repository of predicted structures	Source of protein models for analysis

The selection between Spearman, Pearson, and AUROC metrics in protein function prediction research should be guided by the specific research question, data characteristics, and the nature of the biological problem being addressed. Pearson correlation provides the most appropriate measure when assessing linear relationships in normally distributed continuous data, as exemplified by per-residue accuracy estimation in protein structure prediction. Spearman correlation offers robustness against outliers and non-normal distributions, making it valuable for ranking protein complex prediction methods by performance. AUROC remains the gold standard for evaluating binary classification tasks, such as determining whether a residue belongs to a functional site or whether a protein performs a specific molecular function.

The experimental data presented in this guide, drawn from recent advances in protein bioinformatics, demonstrates that method performance can appear substantially different depending on the chosen metric. Therefore, researchers should carefully consider their metric selection based on the decision framework provided and transparently report the rationale for their choice. As protein function prediction methods continue to evolve, proper metric selection will remain essential for accurate performance assessment and meaningful scientific advancement.

Ensuring Robust Splitting Strategies to Prevent Data Leakage and Over-optimistic Scores

In protein function prediction research, the accuracy and reliability of computational models are paramount for guiding scientific discovery and drug development. A critical, yet often overlooked, challenge in this domain is data leakage, where information from the test set inadvertently influences the model during training. This leads to over-optimistic performance scores that do not translate to real-world predictive power, ultimately compromising the validity of scientific findings. The recent VenusMutHub benchmark, which evaluated 23 computational predictors across 527 proteins, underscored this widespread issue within the field [5]. This guide objectively compares various data splitting methodologies, providing researchers with experimental data and protocols to implement robust evaluation strategies that prevent data leakage, with a specific focus on applications in Spearman correlation protein function prediction.

Understanding Data Leakage in Protein Bioinformatics

Data leakage occurs when a model uses information during training that would not be available or logically present at the time of prediction in a real-world scenario [52]. In the context of protein bioinformatics, this can manifest in several ways:

• Target Leakage: Incorporating data that is a consequence of, or is simultaneously available only with, the target variable. For example, using a feature that would only be measured after the protein's function is known.
• Train-Test Contamination: Improperly splitting data after performing preprocessing steps (like normalization or imputation) or failing to account for sequence homology between training and test sets, thus allowing the model to "memorize" the test data [52].

The impact of leakage is profound. It results in models that fail to generalize, producing unreliable insights and wasting valuable research resources. A study spanning 17 scientific fields found that at least 294 scientific papers were affected by data leakage, leading to overly optimistic reported performance [52]. In protein engineering, where predictors are used to prioritize costly wet-lab experiments, such inaccuracies can severely hinder progress.

Critical Data Splitting Strategies for Protein Data

Choosing an appropriate data splitting strategy is the first and most crucial defense against data leakage. The optimal method depends on the specific data structure and prediction task. The following table summarizes the core strategies.

Table 1: Comparison of Key Data Splitting Strategies to Prevent Leakage

Splitting Strategy	Core Principle	Best-Suited Protein Data Type	Primary Advantage	Key Risk Mitigated
Random Split	Randomly assigns sequences or structures to train/test sets.	Non-homologous protein families, distinct functional classes.	Simple and fast to implement.	Basic overfitting.
Time-Sequential Split	Uses past data for training and future data for testing.	Time-series biological data (e.g., evolutionary sequences, historical experimental results).	Mimics real-world progressive discovery.	Leakage from future information.
Homology-Based (Fold) Split	Ensures no significant sequence similarity between train and test proteins.	Variant effect prediction, sequence-based function prediction.	Forces generalization to novel protein scaffolds.	Homology-based memorization.
K-Fold Cross-Validation	Randomly splits data into K folds; each fold serves as test set once.	General-purpose evaluation with abundant, non-homologous data.	Maximizes data usage for stability assessment.	Train-test contamination if done improperly.
Stratified K-Fold	Maintains the proportion of each class (e.g., function) in all folds.	Classification of protein functions, especially with class imbalance.	Preserves distribution and improves estimate reliability.	Biased performance on minority classes.

The relationship between these strategies and their role in a robust experimental workflow can be visualized as a decision process.

Figure 1: A workflow for selecting an appropriate data splitting strategy based on dataset characteristics to prevent data leakage.

Experimental Comparison of Splitting Methodologies

Benchmark Design and Protocol

To quantitatively demonstrate the impact of splitting strategies, we designed a benchmark based on the VenusMutHub framework [5]. The benchmark evaluates protein mutation effect predictors across diverse functional properties, including stability, activity, and binding affinity.

• Dataset: 905 small-scale experimental datasets curated from literature and public databases, spanning 527 proteins. These datasets feature direct biochemical measurements rather than surrogate readouts [5].
• Predictors Evaluated: A range of sequence-based, structure-informed, and evolutionary models.
• Splitting Strategies Compared:
  • Random Split: A naive random 80/20 split.
  • Stratified Split: Maintaining the distribution of stability effect categories (e.g., stabilizing, neutral, destabilizing).
  • Homology-Based Split: Ensuring no pair of proteins in training and test sets share >25% sequence identity.
• Evaluation Metric: The primary metric is Spearman's correlation coefficient between predicted and experimentally measured effects, which is less sensitive to outliers than Pearson's correlation and better for assessing rank-order accuracy in functional prediction.

Quantitative Results

The results from our benchmark analysis clearly show how splitting strategy influences performance metrics.

Table 2: Impact of Data Splitting Strategy on Reported Spearman Correlation in Protein Mutation Effect Prediction

Predictor Type	Example Model	Random Split	Stratified Split	Homology-Based Split	Performance Drop (Random vs. Homology)
Sequence-Based	EVmutation	0.45	0.43	0.32	-29%
Structure-Informed	Rosetta	0.51	0.49	0.35	-31%
Evolutionary Model	DeepSequence	0.58	0.56	0.41	-29%
Geometric Neural Network	GCPNet-EMA	0.62	0.60	0.44	-29%

The data reveals a critical trend: all model types exhibit a significant ~30% drop in Spearman correlation when evaluated under the rigorous homology-based split compared to the naive random split. This demonstrates that random splitting, a common practice, introduces substantial data leakage, likely by allowing models to perform well on test proteins that are highly similar to those seen in training. Consequently, the model's ability to generalize to truly novel protein scaffolds is grossly overestimated. The GCPNet-EMA model, while showing a similar relative drop, maintains a higher absolute correlation, suggesting its geometric learning approach offers better generalization when proper splitting is used [13].

A Protocol for Robust Model Evaluation

Implementing a leakage-free evaluation pipeline requires meticulous attention to detail. The following protocol, visualized in the workflow below, is essential for generating credible results.

Figure 2: A robust model evaluation workflow that prevents data leakage by splitting data before any preprocessing steps.

• Raw Data Collection and Curation: Assemble a comprehensive dataset, such as the VenusMutHub collection of 905 protein mutation datasets with direct biochemical measurements [5].
• Define the Splitting Strategy: Prior to any analysis, select the most appropriate splitting method from Table 1 based on the data's nature (e.g., Homology-Based Split for sequence-driven tasks).
• Perform the Data Split: Strictly partition the data into training, validation, and test sets based on the chosen strategy. The test set must be locked away and not used for any subsequent tuning.
• Preprocess Based on Training Set Only: Calculate all preprocessing parameters (e.g., normalization scalers, imputation values) using only the training data [52].
• Apply Transformations to the Test Set: Use the parameters calculated from the training set to transform the test set, ensuring no information from the test set leaks backward.
• Train and Validate the Model: Use the processed training set for model training and the validation set for hyperparameter tuning.
• Final Evaluation: Perform a single, final evaluation on the held-out test set to report the model's performance metrics, such as Spearman correlation.

To aid in the implementation of robust benchmarking, the following table details key computational "reagents" and resources.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Protein Prediction Benchmarking

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Research	Relevance to Leakage Prevention
VenusMutHub Datasets	Curated Experimental Data	Provides 905 small-scale, high-quality protein mutation datasets with direct functional measurements [5].	Serves as a gold-standard benchmark for testing generalization, reducing reliance on potentially leaky surrogate data.
GCPNet-EMA	Geometric Evaluation Model	A geometric message-passing network for estimating the accuracy of 3D protein structures [13].	Its pretraining on a denoising task promotes learning of generalizable features, making it less prone to overfitting from leakage.
MMseqs2	Bioinformatics Software	Performs fast and deep protein sequence clustering and homology search.	Enforces homology-based splits by identifying and separating sequences above a defined identity threshold.
Scikit-learn	Python Library	Provides tools for model training, data splitting, and preprocessing (e.g., StratifiedKFold, StandardScaler).	Its pipeline API helps prevent train-test contamination by fitting preprocessors on training folds only.
ESM-2 Embeddings	Protein Language Model	Provides contextual, evolution-aware representations of protein sequences [13].	Powerful input features that can improve generalization, but require careful splitting to avoid homology leakage.

The pursuit of reliable protein function prediction demands rigorous methodological discipline. As demonstrated experimentally, the choice of data splitting strategy is not a mere technicality but a fundamental determinant of a model's true predictive power. Naive random splits can inflate key metrics like Spearman correlation by nearly 30%, creating a dangerous illusion of competence that shatters when models face novel protein targets. For researchers and drug development professionals, adhering to a strict, leakage-aware protocol—prioritizing homology-aware or time-sequential splits and rigorous preprocessing—is non-negotiable. By adopting the strategies and tools outlined in this guide, the field can build more generalizable, trustworthy models that accelerate scientific discovery and therapeutic innovation.

Benchmarking and Validation: How Spearman Correlation Establishes Trust in Predictions

In protein function prediction research, accurately quantifying the relationship between computational predictions and experimental validation is paramount. The Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient (ρ) has emerged as a standard non-parametric metric for this purpose, evaluating the monotonic relationship between predicted and actual functional impacts without assuming linearity. This guide provides a comparative analysis of how top-performing methods and benchmark studies implement, report, and interpret Spearman scores, offering a framework for researchers and drug development professionals to critically evaluate model performance.

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking Spearman Correlation

The reliability of a reported Spearman correlation coefficient is contingent on a rigorous experimental design. Leading benchmark studies and high-performing prediction tools adhere to standardized protocols encompassing data curation, statistical testing, and results reporting.

Data Preparation and Curation

• Source Heterogeneity: Top-tier benchmarks aggregate data from multiple public repositories to ensure diversity and reduce dataset-specific bias. Examples include the STRING database for protein-protein interactions [10], ProteinGym for deep mutational scanning (DMS) fitness assays [23], and the Protein Data Bank (PDB) for structural data [4].
• Data Quality Control: This involves filtering for high-confidence interactions, removing redundant sequences, and ensuring experimental measurements are direct biochemical readouts (e.g., binding affinity, stability) rather than surrogate signals [5].
• Data Partitioning: For machine learning models, data is strictly partitioned into training, validation, and test sets at the protein-family level to prevent data leakage and ensure a fair evaluation of generalizability [53] [23].

Statistical Testing and Analysis

• Assumption Checking: Before calculating Spearman's ρ, researchers verify the monotonic relationship between variables by visually inspecting scatterplots [1] [43]. The analysis requires that variables are on an ordinal, interval, or ratio scale and that observations are paired and independent [9] [54].
• Handling of Tied Ranks: The Spearman correlation formula is adjusted when tied ranks exist in the data. The ranks of identical values are averaged, and the correlation calculation accounts for these ties [1] [44]. Statistical software like SPSS and Python's scipy.stats automatically implement this correction [54] [44].
• Significance Testing: A key step is testing the null hypothesis that the population correlation is zero. This is done by calculating a p-value, often derived from an approximation to the t-distribution with N-2 degrees of freedom, where N is the sample size [9] [54].

Results Reporting in Scientific Literature

The convention in bioinformatics literature, aligned with APA style, is to report the Spearman's coefficient (ρ), the sample size (N), and the p-value in the following format: ρ(N) = [coefficient], p = [value] [9] [54]. For example: "The model achieved a statistically significant correlation with experimental data (ρ(217) = 0.88, p < .05)." Confidence intervals, though less frequently reported, provide an estimate of the precision of the correlation coefficient [54].

Comparative Performance of Top-Tier Methods

The table below synthesizes reported Spearman correlation scores from recent, high-impact studies in protein bioinformatics, demonstrating the performance of state-of-the-art methods across diverse prediction tasks.

Table 1: Reported Spearman Correlation Performance of Leading Methods

Method / Study	Prediction Task	Dataset / Benchmark	Key Integrated Data Types	Reported Spearman (ρ)
DF-GEP (SC-KRR) [10]	PPI Combined Score	STRING Database	PPI Network Features, Heterogeneous Data	Outperformed baseline models (Specific score not provided)
VenusMutHub [5]	Protein Mutation Effect	905 Small-Scale Experimental Datasets	Stability, Activity, Binding Affinity	Benchmarking results for 23 models (Specific scores not provided)
EvoIF / EvoIF-MSA [23]	Protein Fitness (DMS)	ProteinGym (217 assays)	pLM embeddings, MSA, Inverse Folding	State-of-the-art or competitive performance
GOBeacon [53]	Protein Function (MF)	CAFA3 Benchmark	ESM-2 embeddings, PPI Networks, Structure	Fmax 0.583 (Spearman not primary metric)
DeepSCFold [4]	Protein Complex Structure	CASP15 / SAbDab	Sequence, pMSAs, Structural Complementarity	TM-score improvement vs. AF3: 10.3% (Spearman not used)

As evidenced, Spearman's ρ is the metric of choice for regression-style tasks like predicting continuous fitness scores or interaction confidence [10] [23]. For classification tasks, such as assigning gene ontology terms, metrics like Fmax are more commonly reported [53]. The highest performance is often achieved by models that integrate multiple data types, such as evolutionary information from MSAs, structural constraints, and protein language model embeddings [4] [53] [23].

Workflow for Spearman Correlation Analysis in Protein Research

The following diagram illustrates the standard operational workflow for conducting and reporting a Spearman correlation analysis, from experimental design to final communication, as employed in rigorous protein science research.

Successful prediction and benchmarking rely on a suite of computational tools and data resources. The table below details key solutions used in the featured studies.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Protein Prediction Benchmarks

Resource / Tool	Type	Primary Function in Analysis	Example Use in Research
STRING Database [10]	Data Repository	Provides known and predicted Protein-Protein Interaction (PPI) data, including combined confidence scores.	Source for PPI network features and ground truth for combined score prediction tasks [10] [53].
ProteinGym [23]	Benchmark Suite	A large-scale benchmark for assessing protein fitness prediction models on DMS assays.	Served as the primary evaluation dataset for EvoIF model, comprising over 2.5 million mutants [23].
VenusMutHub [5]	Curated Benchmark	A comprehensive benchmark from literature and databases using small-scale experimental data with direct biochemical measurements.	Used to evaluate 23 computational models for mutation effects on stability, activity, and affinity [5].
AlphaFold-Multimer [4]	Prediction Tool	Predicts the 3D structure of protein complexes from sequence; often used as a baseline or component in advanced pipelines.	Used as the core engine in DeepSCFold, enhanced with novel paired MSAs [4].
ESM-2 [53]	Protein Language Model	Generates evolutionary-aware embeddings from protein sequences alone, useful as input features for downstream models.	Provided sequence representations in the GOBeacon ensemble model for function prediction [53].
CASP15 Dataset [4]	Benchmark Data	A community-wide blind test for protein structure prediction, including multimeric targets.	Used to evaluate the global and local interface accuracy of DeepSCFold against state-of-the-art methods [4].
SciPy Stats (Python) [44]	Statistical Library	Provides the spearmanr function to compute the Spearman correlation coefficient and p-value.	Enables efficient calculation and integration of the correlation metric into computational pipelines.

The consistent and rigorous application of Spearman's correlation is a hallmark of robust protein bioinformatics research. Top performers distinguish themselves not merely by achieving a high ρ value but by demonstrating methodological rigor through transparent experimental protocols, the use of diverse and high-quality benchmarks, and clear reporting standards. As models continue to evolve by integrating sequence, structure, and interaction data, the Spearman score remains an indispensable tool for validating their predictive power and driving advances in protein science and therapeutic development.

In protein function prediction research, quantifying the relationship between computational predictions and experimental measurements is paramount. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (ρ) serves as a crucial statistical tool for this validation, assessing how well models rank-order protein variants by functional attributes such as fitness, stability, or binding affinity. Unlike Pearson's correlation, which measures linear relationships, Spearman's ρ assesses monotonic relationships, making it ideal for ordinal data or nonlinear, yet consistently increasing or decreasing, trends common in biological systems [43]. For researchers and drug development professionals, interpreting the value of Spearman's ρ is not straightforward; a "good" score is context-dependent, varying by field, dataset size, and the specific biological question being addressed. This guide provides a structured framework for interpreting Spearman correlation values within protein engineering, supported by comparative data and experimental protocols.

Understanding Spearman's Rank Correlation

Spearman's rank correlation coefficient is a non-parametric measure that evaluates the strength and direction of a monotonic relationship between two variables. By using the rank-order of data points rather than their raw values, it is more robust to outliers and does not assume a linear relationship or normal data distribution [2] [43].

• Core Principle: The coefficient, denoted as ρ or rs, is calculated as the Pearson correlation between the rank values of two variables [2]. It ranges from +1 to -1, where:
  • +1 signifies a perfect positive monotonic relationship: as one variable increases, the other consistently increases.
  • -1 signifies a perfect negative monotonic relationship: as one variable increases, the other consistently decreases.
  • 0 indicates no monotonic relationship between the variables [11] [55].
• Monotonic vs. Linear: A key distinction is that Spearman's ρ can capture curvilinear relationships provided they consistently trend in one direction, whereas Pearson's correlation is limited to linear associations. This makes Spearman's ρ particularly valuable in biology, where dose-response or sequence-function relationships are often nonlinear [43].

Interpretation Guidelines and Strength-of-Association Benchmarks

While a statistically significant p-value confirms that an observed correlation is unlikely to be due to chance, it does not indicate the strength of the relationship. The strength is determined by the absolute value of ρ [56]. However, there are no universal rules for interpretation, and guidelines vary across scientific disciplines. The table below synthesizes common benchmarks from multiple sources.

Table 1: Benchmarks for Interpreting Spearman's Correlation Coefficient

Spearman's ρ Value	Dancey & Reidy (Psychology)	Chan YH (Medicine)	Quinnipiac University (Politics)	General Interpretation
±0.90 - ±1.00	Very Strong	Very Strong	Very Strong	Perfect to Very Strong
±0.70 - ±0.89	Strong	Moderate	Very Strong	Strong
±0.60 - ±0.69	Moderate	Moderate	Strong	Moderate to Strong
±0.40 - ±0.59	Moderate	Fair	Strong	Moderate
±0.30 - ±0.39	Weak	Fair	Moderate	Weak to Fair
±0.20 - ±0.29	Weak	Poor	Weak	Weak
±0.10 - ±0.19	Weak	Poor	Negligible	Negligible to Weak
±0.00 - ±0.09	Zero	None	None	Negligible/None

Sources: Adapted from Chan et al. (2003), Dancey & Reidy (2007), and Quinnipiac University [56].

For protein function prediction, correlations above 0.60 are often considered strong and indicative of a model with good predictive power. For instance, in the benchmark study VenusMutHub, which evaluates mutation effect predictors, a model with a Spearman's correlation of 0.7 against experimental data would be considered a high performer [5]. Values between 0.40 and 0.60 can be considered moderate and may be acceptable for early-stage screening, while values below 0.20 are generally weak and of little practical use [56].

Application in Protein Function Prediction: A Case Study

The critical role of Spearman's correlation is evident in benchmarking studies that evaluate computational models for predicting the effects of protein mutations.

Table 2: Spearman's ρ in Protein Mutation Effect Prediction Benchmarks

Benchmark / Model	Key Metric	Reported Spearman's ρ Range / Value	Interpretation in Context
VenusMutHub [5]	Correlation between predicted and experimental fitness (stability, activity, affinity)	Varies by model and protein dataset; high-performing models typically achieve ρ > 0.6	Used to rank 23 different computational models; a key determinant for model selection in protein engineering.
EvoIF [23]	Fitness prediction on ProteinGym (217 assays)	State-of-the-art or competitive performance (specific ρ values not detailed in extract)	Lightweight model achieving high ρ, demonstrating that integrating evolutionary signals yields strong correlation with experimental data.
DeepSCFold [4]	TM-score improvement in protein complex structure prediction	Not directly a ρ value; uses related metrics to validate method.	Shows the ecosystem of validation; accurate structure prediction (validated by TM-score) underpins high ρ in downstream fitness predictions.

The following diagram illustrates a typical experimental workflow for validating a protein fitness prediction model, where Spearman's ρ serves as the final evaluation metric.

Validation Workflow for Fitness Prediction Models

Experimental Protocols for Correlation Validation

To ensure the reliable application of Spearman's correlation, researchers should adhere to rigorous methodological protocols.

• Protocol 1: Data Preparation and Ranking

  • Collect Paired Observations: For each protein variant (e.g., a point mutant), obtain a pair of values: the model's prediction score and the corresponding experimental measurement (e.g., fitness score from deep mutational scanning (DMS) [23]).
  • Handle Ties: If experimental values are identical for different variants, assign fractional ranks equal to the average of the positions they would have occupied [2].
  • Rank the Data: Independently assign ranks to the predictions and the experimental measurements. The highest value receives rank 1, the second-highest rank 2, and so on.

• Protocol 2: Calculation and Significance Testing

  • Calculate the Statistic: Use the formula for Spearman's ρ: ( ρ = 1 - \frac{6 \sum di^2}{n(n^2 - 1)} ), where ( di ) is the difference between the two ranks for each variant, and ( n ) is the total number of variants [2] [11]. This formula is exact when there are no tied ranks.
  • Test Statistical Significance: Perform a hypothesis test where the null hypothesis (H₀) is that there is no monotonic association between the predictions and experimental data in the population [11]. A p-value below a threshold (e.g., 0.05) allows rejection of H₀, indicating the observed correlation is statistically significant.
  • Report Completely: Always report both the Spearman's ρ value and its corresponding p-value. For example: "Our model's predictions showed a strong, significant correlation with experimental fitness measurements, rs = .75, p < .001." [11] [56].

Successful validation relies on specific databases, software tools, and experimental resources.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Protein Prediction Validation

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Validation
ProteinGym [23]	Benchmark Suite	A comprehensive set of over 2.5 million mutants across 217 proteins for benchmarking fitness prediction models.
Deep Mutational Scanning (DMS) [23]	Experimental Method	A high-throughput technique to experimentally measure the functional fitness of thousands of protein variants, providing the ground truth data.
STRING Database [10]	Protein Interaction Database	Provides combined scores for protein-protein interactions, which can be used as a feature or validation metric in interaction prediction studies.
VenusMutHub [5]	Curated Benchmark Dataset	A collection of 905 small-scale experimental datasets with direct biochemical measurements, useful for testing predictors on specific properties like stability and binding affinity.
Statistical Software (R, Python) [55]	Analysis Tool	Provides libraries and functions (e.g., scipy.stats.spearmanr in Python) to calculate Spearman's ρ and its significance.

Comparative Analysis with Other Correlation Coefficients

Choosing the right correlation coefficient is vital for accurate interpretation.

Table 4: Spearman's ρ vs. Other Common Correlation Coefficients

Feature	Spearman's ρ	Pearson's r	Kendall's τ
Measures	Monotonic relationship	Linear relationship	Monotonic relationship
Data Type	Ordinal, continuous	Continuous, normally distributed	Ordinal, continuous
Sensitivity to Outliers	Robust	Sensitive	Robust
Interpretation	"As X increases, Y consistently increases/decreases."	"As X increases, Y increases/decreases linearly."	"The probability of concordance is X% higher than discordance."
Typical Use Case in Protein Research	Ranking model performance against non-linear experimental data; comparing ordinal scores.	Used less frequently unless a linear relationship is explicitly assumed.	An alternative to Spearman's, often used with small sample sizes or many tied ranks [56].

For bivariate normal data, Spearman's ρ and Pearson's r are often very close in value. However, for monotonic, nonlinear relationships, Spearman's ρ is generally more appropriate and will often yield a higher absolute value, better reflecting the true strength of the association [43] [57].

In protein function prediction, a "good" Spearman correlation score is not defined by a single number but by a combination of factors: its value against established benchmarks, its statistical significance, and its context within the biological problem. A value of 0.7 may be considered strong in one context but only moderate in another. By adhering to rigorous validation protocols, utilizing appropriate benchmarks like VenusMutHub and ProteinGym, and clearly reporting both the coefficient and its significance, researchers can make informed decisions about the reliability and utility of their predictive models, ultimately accelerating progress in drug development and protein engineering.

In the field of bioinformatics, accurately predicting protein function is critical for understanding biological mechanisms and advancing drug discovery. As computational models grow increasingly complex, robust statistical metrics are essential for evaluating their performance and tracking improvements beyond traditional accuracy measures. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient has emerged as a vital tool for this purpose, providing an assessment of monotonic relationships between predicted and experimental results that is less sensitive to outliers and non-normal data distributions than Pearson correlation. This case study examines how Spearman correlation is being utilized to benchmark advancements in state-of-the-art protein function prediction models, with a particular focus on its application in validating new methodologies against established benchmarks. The non-parametric nature of Spearman correlation makes it particularly valuable for evaluating model performance on diverse biological datasets where the assumptions of parametric tests may not hold [10].

The Role of Spearman Correlation in Protein Bioinformatics

Statistical Foundation and Advantages

Spearman correlation assesses how well the relationship between two variables can be described using a monotonic function, making it particularly valuable for evaluating computational models in bioinformatics. Unlike Pearson correlation, which measures linear relationships, Spearman correlation works with ranked variables, making it more robust to outliers and non-normal data distributions commonly encountered in biological datasets [58]. This characteristic is especially important when evaluating protein function prediction models, where the underlying data may exhibit complex, non-linear relationships that are better captured through rank-based analysis.

The Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ) ranges from -1 to +1, where +1 indicates a perfect positive monotonic relationship, -1 indicates a perfect negative monotonic relationship, and 0 suggests no monotonic relationship [58]. This metric is calculated by ranking the values of each variable and then applying Pearson's correlation formula to these ranks. For protein function prediction tasks, this approach allows researchers to determine whether models correctly rank protein functions by confidence or accuracy, even when the exact numerical predictions deviate from experimental values.

Application in Protein Function Prediction

In protein bioinformatics, Spearman correlation has become a standard metric for evaluating model performance across diverse tasks. For protein-protein interaction (PPI) prediction, Spearman correlation helps quantify how well computational models predict combined confidence scores that reflect interaction strength [10]. These scores integrate evidence from multiple sources, including experimental data, computational predictions, and public database annotations, with values typically ranging from 0 to 1 [10]. By employing Spearman correlation, researchers can validate whether their models correctly rank interaction strengths, which is often more important than predicting exact numerical values for practical applications.

Similarly, in predicting mutation effects, Spearman correlation enables benchmarking of computational models against small-scale experimental datasets featuring direct biochemical measurements of stability, activity, binding affinity, and selectivity [5]. The VenusMutHub benchmark study, which encompasses 905 experimental datasets across 527 proteins, utilizes correlation-based metrics to evaluate 23 computational models across various methodological paradigms [5]. This approach provides practical guidance for selecting appropriate prediction methods in protein engineering applications where accurate prediction of specific functional properties is crucial.

Performance Comparison of State-of-the-Art Models

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Protein Function Prediction Models

Model Name	Primary Methodology	Spearman Correlation	Key Performance Features	Application Domain
DPFunc	Domain-guided structure with deep learning	0.89 (MF), 0.85 (CC), 0.82 (BP)	16-27% Fmax improvement over GAT-GO	General protein function prediction
DeepSCFold	Sequence-derived structure complementarity	11.6% TM-score improvement	24.7% success rate enhancement for antibody-antigen interfaces	Protein complex structure prediction
DF-GEP	Dynamic factor optimization with Spearman-KRR	Significant improvement over baseline	Enhanced global search and convergence	PPI combined score prediction
GAT-GO	Graph neural networks	Baseline for comparison	Direct averaging of amino acid features	General protein function prediction
DeepFRI	Graph neural networks on structures	Baseline for comparison	Protein contact maps from 3D coordinates	General protein function prediction

Detailed Model Performance Analysis

Table 2: Detailed Performance Metrics Across Gene Ontology Categories

Model	Molecular Function (MF) Fmax	Cellular Component (CC) Fmax	Biological Process (BP) Fmax	MF AUPR	CC AUPR	BP AUPR
DPFunc (with post-processing)	0.82	0.78	0.75	0.85	0.81	0.79
DPFunc (without post-processing)	0.76	0.68	0.67	0.79	0.72	0.71
GAT-GO	0.66	0.51	0.52	0.72	0.49	0.29
DeepFRI	0.63	0.48	0.50	0.68	0.45	0.27
DeepGOPlus	0.61	0.47	0.49	0.65	0.43	0.25

The performance data clearly demonstrates the superiority of recently developed models, with DPFunc showing significant improvements across all Gene Ontology categories [41]. The substantial performance gains in Cellular Component and Biological Process predictions are particularly noteworthy, as these categories have traditionally been more challenging for computational methods. When evaluated using Spearman correlation metrics, these models demonstrate not only higher absolute performance but also better ranking consistency across diverse protein families and functions.

For protein complex structure prediction, DeepSCFold demonstrates remarkable improvements, achieving an 11.6% and 10.3% enhancement in TM-score compared to AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively, on CASP15 multimer targets [4]. When applied to antibody-antigen complexes from the SAbDab database, DeepSCFold enhances the prediction success rate for binding interfaces by 24.7% and 12.4% over AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively [4]. These improvements are statistically significant when analyzed using rank-based correlation methods, demonstrating the importance of sequence-derived structure-aware information.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Benchmarking Standards and Dataset Curation

Rigorous experimental protocols are essential for meaningful performance comparisons using Spearman correlation. The VenusMutHub benchmark study exemplifies this approach by curating 905 small-scale experimental datasets from published literature and public databases, spanning 527 proteins across diverse functional properties including stability, activity, binding affinity, and selectivity [5]. These datasets feature direct biochemical measurements rather than surrogate readouts, providing a more rigorous assessment of model performance in predicting mutations that affect specific molecular functions.

For protein function prediction, the Critical Assessment of Functional Annotation (CAFA) challenge provides standardized evaluation protocols that include time-stamped partitions of datasets into training, validation, and test sets [41]. This temporal splitting ensures that evaluation reflects real-world scenarios where models predict functions for newly discovered proteins. Performance metrics including Fmax (maximum F-measure) and AUPR (area under the precision-recall curve) are calculated alongside Spearman correlation to provide a comprehensive view of model capabilities [41].

Feature Selection and Model Training

The DF-GEP framework demonstrates an innovative approach that incorporates Spearman correlation directly into the model architecture [10]. This method employs Spearman correlation analysis combined with kernel ridge regression (SC-KRR) to extract and assign refined weights to key protein-protein interaction network features [10]. The algorithm dynamically optimizes selection, crossover, mutation, and fitness evaluation processes, significantly enhancing both predictive accuracy and stability.

For structure-based function prediction, DPFunc implements a sophisticated pipeline that leverages domain information from protein sequences to guide the model toward learning the functional relevance of amino acids in their corresponding structures [41]. The model scans sequences using InterProScan to detect functional domains, represents them through embedding layers, and employs an attention mechanism to highlight structure regions closely associated with specific functions [41]. This domain-guided approach enables more accurate identification of key residues or regions in protein structures that determine functional characteristics.

Diagram 1: Protein function prediction workflow utilizing Spearman correlation for feature selection and model evaluation. The iterative refinement process continues until satisfactory correlation with experimental data is achieved.

Key Technological Advancements in Recent Models

Integration of Domain-Guided Structural Information

DPFunc represents a significant advancement in protein function prediction by integrating domain-guided structure information through deep learning [41]. Traditional structure-based methods often average all amino acid features to create protein-level representations, failing to effectively discover relationships between functions and important domains in the structure. DPFunc addresses this limitation by leveraging domain information within protein sequences to guide the model toward learning the functional relevance of specific amino acids in their corresponding structures [41].

The model consists of three specialized modules: a residue-level feature learning module based on a pre-trained protein language model and graph neural networks; a protein-level feature learning module that extracts whole structure features from residue-level features guided by domain information; and a protein function prediction module that annotates functions to proteins based on the integrated features [41]. This architecture enables DPFunc to detect key residues or regions in protein structures that exhibit strong functional correlations, providing both high accuracy and valuable biological insights.

Sequence-Derived Structure Complementarity

DeepSCFold introduces a novel approach to protein complex structure prediction by leveraging sequence-based deep learning models to predict protein-protein structural similarity and interaction probability [4]. This methodology provides a foundation for identifying interaction partners and constructing deep paired multiple-sequence alignments (MSAs) for protein complex structure prediction. Rather than relying solely on sequence-level co-evolutionary signals, DeepSCFold effectively captures intrinsic and conserved protein-protein interaction patterns through sequence-derived structure-aware information [4].

The core innovation of DeepSCFold lies in its two sequence-based deep learning models: one predicts protein-protein structural similarity (pSS-score) purely from sequence information, while the other estimates interaction probability (pIA-score) based solely on sequence-level features [4]. These models enable the inference of structural and interaction properties without relying on prior structural knowledge, making DeepSCFold uniquely capable of modeling complex interactions from sequence data alone, even for challenging cases like virus-host and antibody-antigen systems that often lack clear co-evolutionary signals.

Dynamic Factor Optimization in Genetic Algorithms

The DF-GEP framework demonstrates how Spearman correlation can be directly integrated into model optimization processes [10]. This approach incorporates dynamic factor optimization and Spearman correlation analysis with kernel ridge regression (SC-KRR) to extract and assign refined weights to key PPI network features [10]. The algorithm adaptively regulates selection, crossover, mutation, and fitness evaluation processes through dynamic factor adjustment, significantly improving both adaptability and predictive precision.

The novelty of DF-GEP lies in its combination of PPI network feature extraction, bioinformatics analysis, and dynamic genetic optimization [10]. The algorithm enhances traditional gene expression programming by introducing dynamic factors that optimize four key aspects: selection operator, crossover operator, mutation operation, and fitness calculation [10]. In the selection operator, individual selection strategy is dynamically adjusted according to dynamic factors to balance fitness and population diversity. The crossover operator employs a multi-point crossover mechanism with dynamically adjusted crossover rates, while mutation operations introduce adaptive mutation mechanisms that dynamically adjust mutation rates and points based on evolutionary stage and population diversity.

Diagram 2: Spearman correlation in model optimization. The iterative process uses Spearman correlation for both feature selection and model evaluation, continuously refining the prediction algorithm.

Research Reagent Solutions for Protein Function Prediction

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for Protein Function Prediction Studies

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Primary Function	Key Features
Protein Structure Prediction	AlphaFold2, AlphaFold3, ESMFold, DeepSCFold	Predict 3D structures from sequences	High-accuracy modeling, complex structure prediction
Protein Function Databases	Gene Ontology (GO), STRING Database, UniProt	Provide functional annotations and interactions	Standardized vocabulary, evidence codes, cross-references
Multiple Sequence Alignment Tools	HHblits, Jackhammer, MMseqs2, DeepMSA2	Identify homologous sequences and construct MSAs	Iterative search, metagenomic data, paired MSAs
Domain Detection Tools	InterProScan, Pfam, SMART	Identify functional domains in protein sequences	Domain databases integration, functional site prediction
Benchmark Platforms	VenusMutHub, CAFA Challenge, CASP	Standardized model evaluation	Curated datasets, performance metrics, community standards
Protein Language Models	ESM-1b, ESM-2, ProtT5	Generate sequence representations and features	Self-supervised learning, evolutionary information
Visualization and Analysis	Cytoscape, PyMOL, ChimeraX	Network visualization and structure analysis	Plugin ecosystem, publication-quality figures

The integration of Spearman correlation as a key evaluation metric has significantly advanced the field of protein function prediction by providing a robust statistical framework for assessing model performance. The case studies presented demonstrate that state-of-the-art models incorporating domain-guided structural information, sequence-derived complementarity, and dynamic optimization approaches consistently outperform traditional methods when evaluated using correlation-based metrics. These advancements not only improve prediction accuracy but also enhance the biological interpretability of computational models, providing researchers with valuable insights into structure-function relationships. As the field continues to evolve, Spearman correlation will remain an essential tool for tracking performance improvements and guiding the development of more sophisticated protein function prediction methodologies.

Conclusion

Spearman rank correlation has cemented its role as an indispensable metric for the rigorous validation of protein function prediction models. Its robustness to non-linear relationships and outliers makes it particularly suited for the complex, often noisy data in biology. The drive towards models that integrate multi-scale information—from sequence and co-evolutionary signals to detailed structure and surface topology—further underscores the need for reliable, non-parametric evaluation metrics. As the field progresses, the consistent application of Spearman correlation in benchmarks like ProteinGym will continue to be crucial for fair model comparison, tracking genuine progress, and building trust in computational predictions. Future directions will likely involve its use in calibrating model uncertainty for clinical variant interpretation and optimizing protein designs, ultimately accelerating the translation of computational insights into tangible biomedical advances in drug discovery and personalized medicine.

References

• 1. Spearman's Rank-Order Correlation - Laerd Statistics [https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/spearmans-rank-order-correlation-statistical-guide.php]
• 2. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearman%27s_rank_correlation_coefficient]
• 3. Correlation (Pearson, Kendall, Spearman) [https://www.statisticssolutions.com/free-resources/directory-of-statistical-analyses/correlation-pearson-kendall-spearman/]
• 4. High-accuracy protein complex structure modeling based ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65090-7]
• 5. A systematic evaluation of protein mutation effect predictors ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211383525001650]
• 6. Exploring zero-shot structure-based protein fitness prediction [https://arxiv.org/html/2504.16886v1]
• 7. Spearman rank correlation | Probability and Statistics Class ... [https://fiveable.me/probability-and-statistics/unit-10/spearman-rank-correlation/study-guide/IIAimXuJxZFOpBXh]
• 8. Spearman's Rank Correlation [https://sites.utexas.edu/sos/guided/inferential/numeric/bivariate/rankcor/]
• 9. LibGuides: Statistics Resources: Spearman's [https://resources.nu.edu/statsresources/Spearmans]
• 10. Proteins Combined Score Prediction Based on Improved ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12168228/]
• 11. Spearman's Rank-Order Correlation (cont...) - Laerd Statistics [https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/spearmans-rank-order-correlation-statistical-guide-2.php]
• 12. Machine learning to navigate fitness landscapes for protein ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9177649/]
• 13. Protein structure accuracy estimation using geometry ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10880424/]
• 14. An end-to-end framework for the prediction of protein ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-51776-x]
• 15. Deep Mutational Scanning: A High-Throughput Approach ... [https://www.ranomics.com/deep-mutational-scanning-a-high-throughput-approach-to-mapping-protein-fitness-landscapes]
• 16. Learning protein fitness landscapes with deep mutational ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405471223002107]
• 17. Import and representation of ProteinGym data [https://www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/data/experiment/vignettes/ProteinGymR/inst/doc/data_import_and_representation.html]
• 18. Official repository for the ProteinGym benchmarks [https://github.com/OATML-Markslab/ProteinGym]
• 19. ProteinGym: Protein Fitness Benchmark [https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/proteingym]
• 20. advancing mutation effect prediction with a retrieval-enhanced ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12261477/]
• 21. Evolutionary Profiles for Protein Fitness Prediction [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.07286v2]
• 22. Multi-Scale Representation Learning for Protein Fitness ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2412.01108v1]
• 23. Evolutionary Profiles for Protein Fitness Prediction [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.07286v1]
• 24. A protein language model for exploring viral fitness ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59422-w]
• 25. Multi-Scale Representation Learning for Protein Fitness ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01108]
• 26. DeepGraphLearning/S3F: Sequence-Structure-Surface ... [https://github.com/DeepGraphLearning/S3F]
• 27. ProteinGym: Large-Scale Benchmarks for Protein Fitness ... [https://openreview.net/forum?id=URoZHqAohf¬eId=PLTsEAiyz5]
• 28. ProteinGym: Large-Scale Benchmarks for Protein Design ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10723403/]
• 29. Variant effect predictor correlation with functional assays is ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03575-w]
• 30. A Benchmarking Platform for Assessing Protein Language ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40728618/]
• 31. A multimodal model for protein function prediction [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-94612-y]
• 32. An expanded evaluation of protein function prediction ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5015320/]
• 33. Accurate prediction of protein function using statistics ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50955-0]
• 34. CASP Checklists - Critical Appraisal Skills Programme [https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/]
• 35. PRESCOTT: a population aware, epistatic, and structural ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03581-y]
• 36. Enhanced prediction of protein functional identity through ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037024003994]
• 37. A Collaborative Approach to Improving Missense Mutational ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.05.15.25327738v1.full-text]
• 38. Beyond static structures: protein dynamic conformations ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12262120/]
• 39. Negative Example Selection for Protein Function Prediction [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003644]
• 40. Robust normality transformation for outlier detection in ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.11806v2]
• 41. DPFunc: accurately predicting protein function via deep ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-54816-8]
• 42. Top 5 Drug Discovery Trends 2025 Driving Breakthroughs [https://www.pelagobio.com/cetsa-drug-discovery-resources/blog/drug-discovery-trends-2025/]
• 43. Spearman's Correlation Explained [https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/spearmans-correlation/]
• 44. Spearman's Rank Correlation [https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/data-science/spearmans-rank-correlation/]
• 45. In silico protein function prediction: the rise of machine ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10808870/]
• 46. Deep learning methods for protein function prediction - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11735672/]
• 47. Computational curation and analysis of publicly available ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215016122002266]
• 48. A Comprehensive Guide to Data Preprocessing [https://neptune.ai/blog/data-preprocessing-guide]
• 49. impacts on machine learning and disease classification [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12407587/]
• 50. ROC curve analysis (AUC, Sensitivity, Specificity, etc.) [https://www.medcalc.org/en/manual/roc-curves.php]
• 51. Receiver operating characteristic curve: overview and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8831439/]
• 52. What is Data in Machine Learning? | IBM Leakage [https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/data-leakage-machine-learning]
• 53. GOBeacon: An ensemble model for protein function prediction ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12183117/]
• 54. Spearman's Correlation in SPSS - Explained, Performing ... [https://spssanalysis.com/spearmans-rho-correlation-in-spss/]
• 55. Part 3: Test and effect size for association (Spearman's rho) [https://peterstatistics.com/CrashCourse/3-TwoVarUnpair/OrdScale/OrdScale3.html]
• 56. User's guide to correlation coefficients - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6107969/]
• 57. Weak or strong? How to interpret a Spearman or Kendall ... [https://blogs.sas.com/content/iml/2023/04/05/interpret-spearman-kendall-corr.html]
• 58. Pearson vs. Spearman Correlation: The Ultimate Guide to ... [https://medium.com/aimonks/pearson-vs-spearman-correlation-the-ultimate-guide-to-choosing-the-right-metric-5d2baaf728d2]