ReviewSmall methods2025
Deep Learning Based Models for CRISPR/Cas Off-Target Prediction.
Review in Small methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimizing Off-Target Effects of CRISPR-Cas9 With Optimized sgRNA: Evaluation of Efficiency and Specificity in the Tumor Protein 53 (TP53) Region.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2026Article
- Harnessing Deep Learning Models for Guide RNA Optimization and Off-Target Prediction in CRISPR Systems.Biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- CRISPR-Mediated Silkworm: The Oncoming Agricultural Revolutions and a Rising Model Organism.Genes · 2026Review
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
Abstract
CRISPR/Cas genome editing technologies enable effective and controlled genetic modifications; however, off-target effects remain a significant concern, particularly in clinical applications. Experimental and in silico methods are developed to predict potential off-target sites (OTS), including deep learning based methods, which can automatically and comprehensively learn sequence features, offer a promising tool for OTS prediction. Here, this work reviews the existing OTS prediction tools with an emphasis on deep learning methods, characterizes datasets used for deep learning training and testing, and evaluates six deep learning models -CRISPR-Net, CRISPR-IP, R-CRISPR, CRISPR-M, CrisprDNT, and Crispr-SGRU -using six public datasets and validates OTS data from the CRISPRoffT database. Performance of these models is assessed using standardized metrics, such as Precision, Recall, F1 score, MCC, AUROC and PRAUC. This work finds that incorporating validated OTS datasets into model training enhanced overall model performance, and improved robustness of prediction, particularly with highly imbalanced datasets. While no model consistently outperforms other models across all scenarios, CRISPR-Net, R-CRISPR, and Crispr-SGRU show strong overall performance. This analysis demonstrates the importance of integrating high-quality validated OTS data with advanced deep learning architectures to improve CRISPR/Cas off-target site predictions, ensuring safer genome editing applications.
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.