Evidence mapPaperPMID 42418429Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2026

What will be the future of computational biology for macromolecules in the era of AI?

Arne Elofsson, Nir Ben-Tal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Arne ElofssonScience for Life Laboratory and Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7115-9751
Nir Ben-TalSchool of Neurobiology, Biochemistry and Biophysics, The George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6901-832X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have seen more progress in computational biology for macromolecules in the last five years than we experienced in the five preceding decades. Thus, it is very challenging to forecast future progress. It is possible that we have reached a plateau, and we will be stuck with similar problems as we have today. Still, it is also possible that the field will continue its rapid progress and completely transform other fields, such as biochemistry, molecular and cell biology, and medicine. It is also possible that general AI will take over, and all scientific endeavours will be conducted without human input. To be honest, we do not know what will happen, but we will highlight a few of the challenges and the most critical research questions that we face today. Hopefully, these will be resolved within the following decades, or hopefully much earlier. Looking back over the last decade, we can see that machine learning and deep learning have become significantly more popular (T-test residual > 2) among the papers published within our section of PlosCB. We do believe that this trend will continue; therefore, we focus on the challenges that must be overcome for it to make significant and notable contributions. The future of computational biology for macromolecules in 20 years is likely to be characterised by transformative advances in accuracy, automation, integration, and explainability, with AI playing a role in one form or another.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceComputational BiologyMacromolecular SubstancesDeep LearningHumansMachine LearningMacromolecular Substances

Identifiers

PMID42418429
PMCPMC13345252

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.