ArticleNature communications2025
Benchmarking pre-trained genomic language models for RNA sequence-related predictive applications.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances and challenges of splicing prediction with AI.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- mArXiv · 2026Article
- The DNA dialect: a comprehensive guide to pretrained genomic language models.Molecular systems biology · 2026Review
- A comprehensive survey of genome language models in bioinformatics.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Benchmarking pre-trained genomic language models for RNA sequence-related predictive applications.Nature communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RNA plays a central role in diverse cellular functions across organisms, making the development of computational methods for RNA sequence analysis highly valuable. Recently, pre-trained genomic language models (gLMs) have emerged, offering enhanced flexibility for a range of downstream prediction tasks; however, comprehensive, unbiased evaluations remain limited. In this study, we benchmark eleven gLMs, alongside task-specific methods as comparison, across four RNA processes: non-coding RNA classification, N6-methyladenosine (m6A) modification prediction, alternative splice site prediction, and translation efficiency prediction. Rather than relying solely on increased data volume and model scale, our benchmark analysis demonstrates that outstanding performance arises from synergizing data and algorithms with the biological context. By systematically profiling factors such as pre-training datasets, input context lengths, and tokenization schemes, we demonstrate how specific models achieve superior performance in relevant tasks. While task-specific methods can achieve comparable results with greater computational efficiency under certain conditions, gLMs outperform these approaches when training data is limited or highly imbalanced. Finally, we offer targeted recommendations for model selection across diverse research contexts. Overall, our evaluation underscores both the promise of gLMs and the need for continued refinement to advance future biomedical research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.