1. 4
  1.  

  2. 2

    Since you asked for feedback:

    • I would write one or two sentence at the very beginning detailing your background, basically making clear what your focus will be on (more computer science or biology focused?). This should help the reader set his expectations accordingly. You can so write explicitly what you think the reader should ideally know already.
    • in section ii you describe the model somewhat closely. I think it would make sense to cite the paper in more detail, where the first pipeline is mentioned or where the evotransformer is first defined. It seems like you oriented yourself on the paper, but the reader will most likely not have it open alongside the article.

    I haven’t read the alphafold paper yet, but your impressions are helpful to me personally, so thanks for writing it up. I liked the personal take and especially admitting what you don’t understand is nice to read, because reading papers is hard and not often acknowledged.

    1. 2

      Cheers, let me get those edits in. Glad at least one person got a bit out of it.

    2. 1

      Overview/review of the alpha fold paper that doesn’t require a lot of machine learning of molecular biology expertise to understand and can be read in 10 minutes.

      I’m not sure I succeeded, it may well staddle the line poorly enough that it’s both uninteresting to someone familiar with the subject and unpenetrable to someone that isn’t.

      But I almost wasted a whole day reading, writing, arguing, and editing to get this done. So I decided I have to post it somewhere to see what people think.

      If you believe it’s too unrelated/abstract/bad then do let me know and I’ll delete it, I think I’ve been posting some mediocre articles here lately and I feel bad about it and want to stop, I appreciate the relative quality of this board as much as anyone. But it’s kind of hard to tell before I see people’s reactions, especially with stuff that you spend a lot of time writing.