ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2025
Iterative attack-and-defend framework for improving TCR-epitope binding prediction models.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2025. 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.
- Mitigating Goodhart's law in epitope-conditioned TCR generation using plug-and-play reward designs.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Computational prediction of TCR cross-reactivity: principles, challenges and translational opportunities.Journal of translational medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationReliable TCR-epitope binding prediction models are essential for development of adoptive T cell therapy and vaccine design. These models often struggle with false positives, which can be attributed to the limited data coverage in existing negative sample datasets. Common strategies for generating negative samples, such as pairing with background T cell receptors (TCRs) or shuffling within pairs, fail to account for model-specific vulnerabilities or biologically implausible sequences.
resultsTo address these challenges, we propose an iterative attack-and-defend framework that systematically identifies and mitigates weaknesses in TCR-epitope prediction models. During the attack phase, a reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) framework is used to attack a prediction model by generating biologically implausible sequences that can easily deceive the model. During the defense phase, these identified false positives are incorporated into fine-tuning dataset, enhancing the model's ability to detect false positives. A comprehensive adversarial negative dataset can be obtained by iteratively attacking and defending the model. This dataset can be directly used to improve model robustness, eliminating the need for users to conduct their own attack-and-defend cycles. We apply our framework to five existing binding prediction models, spanning diverse architectures and embedding strategies to show its efficacy. Experimental results show that our approach significantly improves these models' ability to detect adversarial false positives. The combined dataset constructed from these experiments also provides a benchmarking tool to evaluate and refine prediction models. Our framework offers a new approach for improving model robustness in other biological tasks where negative sampling is inherently limited. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The curated dataset and code are available at a public repository (https://github.com/Lee-CBG/BAP_Attack_n_Defend).
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.