ArticleScientific reports2024
Generative language models on nucleotide sequences of human genes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- codonGPT: reinforcement learning on a generative language model enables scalable mRNA design.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Regulating genome language models: navigating policy challenges at the intersection of AI and genetics.Human genetics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Language models, especially transformer-based ones, have achieved colossal success in natural language processing. To be precise, studies like BERT for natural language understanding and works like GPT-3 for natural language generation are very important. If we consider DNA sequences as a text written with an alphabet of four letters representing the nucleotides, they are similar in structure to natural languages. This similarity has led to the development of discriminative language models such as DNABERT in the field of DNA-related bioinformatics. To our knowledge, however, the generative side of the coin is still largely unexplored. Therefore, we have focused on the development of an autoregressive generative language model such as GPT-3 for DNA sequences. Since working with whole DNA sequences is challenging without extensive computational resources, we decided to conduct our study on a smaller scale and focus on nucleotide sequences of human genes, i.e. unique parts of DNA with specific functions, rather than the whole DNA. This decision has not significantly changed the structure of the problem, as both DNA and genes can be considered as 1D sequences consisting of four different nucleotides without losing much information and without oversimplification. First of all, we systematically studied an almost entirely unexplored problem and observed that recurrent neural networks (RNNs) perform best, while simple techniques such as N-grams are also promising. Another beneficial point was learning how to work with generative models on languages we do not understand, unlike natural languages. The importance of using real-world tasks beyond classical metrics such as perplexity was noted. In addition, we examined whether the data-hungry nature of these models can be altered by selecting a language with minimal vocabulary size, four due to four different types of nucleotides. The reason for reviewing this was that choosing such a language might make the problem easier. However, in this study, we found that this did not change the amount of data required very much.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.