ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing the generalization capabilities of TCR binding predictors via peptide distance analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structure-based TCR-pMHC binding prediction and generalization to unseen peptides.npj drug discovery · 2026Article
- When multimodal fusion fails: contrastive alignment as a necessary stabilizer for TCR-peptide binding prediction.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Cancer vaccines: comprehensive review.BJS open · 2026Review
- HLA alleles shape distinct biases in the usage preferences of TCR VFrontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- LANTERN: TCR-peptide binding predictionPeerJ · 2026Article
- Modeling TCR-pMHC Binding with Dual Encoders and Cross-Attention Fusion.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding the interaction between T Cell Receptors (TCRs) and peptide-bound Major Histocompatibility Complexes (pMHCs) is crucial for comprehending immune responses and developing targeted immunotherapies. While recent machine learning (ML) models show remarkable success in predicting TCR-pMHC binding within training data, these models often fail to generalize to peptides outside their training distributions, raising concerns about their applicability in therapeutic settings. Understanding and improving the generalization of these models is therefore critical to ensure real-world applications. To address this issue, we evaluate the effect of the distance between training and testing peptide distributions on ML model empirical risk assessments, using sequence-based and 3D structure-based distance metrics. In our analysis we use several state-of-the-art models for TCR-peptide binding prediction: Attentive Variational Information Bottleneck (AVIB), NetTCR-2.0 and -2.2, and ERGO II (pre-trained autoencoder) and ERGO II (LSTM). In this work, we introduce a novel approach for assessing the generalization capabilities of TCR binding predictors: the Distance Split (DS) algorithm. The DS algorithm controls the distance between training and testing peptides based on both sequence and structure, allowing for a more nuanced evaluation of model performance. We show that lower 3D shape similarity between training and test peptides is associated with a harder out-of-distribution task definition, which is more interesting when measuring the ability to generalize to unseen peptides. However, we observe the opposite effect when splitting using sequence-based similarity. These findings highlight the importance of using a distance-based splitting approach to benchmark models. This could then be used to estimate a confidence score on predictions on novel and unseen peptides, based on how different they are from the training ones. Additionally, our results may hint that employing 3D shape to complement sequence information could improve the accuracy of TCR-pMHC binding predictors.
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.