What makes you think that taking the consensus will yield better results for secondary structure prediction? As far as I know, there has been little or know progress in secondary structure prediction over the past decade; that is why it was dropped from CASP after CASP5. The best methods - including consensus methods - have reached a plateau just under 80% Q3. With all due respect, I think you might as well just take one of the best methods around and save your energy for something else.

What makes you think that taking the consensus will yield better results for secondary structure prediction? As far as I know, there has been little or no progress in secondary structure prediction over the past decade; that is why it was dropped from CASP after CASP5. The best methods - including consensus methods - have reached a plateau just under 80% Q3. With all due respect, I think you might as well just take one of the best methods around and save your energy for something else.

Hello User 0063!

We believe that this post does not fit the main topic of this site.

Inactive for >2 years

For this reason we have closed your question. This allows us to keep the site focused on the topics that the community can help with.

If you disagree please tell us why in a reply below, we'll be happy to talk about it.

Cheers!