ReviewRNA (New York, N.Y.)2026
Deep learning for RNA secondary structure determination: gauging generalizability and broadening the scope of traditional methods.
Review in RNA (New York, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- PlanarFold: a coarse-grained molecular dynamics model of RNA in two-dimensional space.Nature communications · 2026Article
- What does it take to learn the rules of RNA base pairing? A lot less than you may think.Communications biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The diverse regulatory functions, protein production capacity, and stability of natural and synthetic RNAs are closely tied to their ability to fold into intricate structures. Determining RNA structure is thus fundamental to RNA biology and bioengineering. Among existing approaches to structure determination, computational secondary structure prediction offers a rapid and low-cost strategy and is thus widely used, especially when seeking to identify functional RNA elements in large transcriptomes or screen massive libraries of novel designs. While traditional approaches rely on detailed measurements of folding energetics and/or probabilistic modeling of structural data, recent years have witnessed a surge in deep learning methods, inspired by their tremendous success in protein structure prediction. However, the limited diversity and volume of known RNA structures can impede their ability to accurately predict structures markedly different from the ones they have seen. This is known as the generalization gap and currently poses a major barrier to progress in the field. In this Perspective article, we gauge method generalizability using a new benchmark data set of structured RNAs we curated from the Protein Data Bank. We also discuss the emergence of deep learning methods for predicting structure probing data and use a new data set to underscore generalization challenges unique to this domain along with directions for future improvement. Expanding beyond improving predictive accuracy, we review how advances in deep learning have recently enabled scalable and accessible optimization of traditional structure prediction methods and their seamless integration with modern neural networks.
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.