ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
A curriculum learning approach to training antibody language models.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 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.
- Evaluating Expert Specialization in Mixture-of-Experts Antibody Language Models.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Data-optimal scaling of paired antibody language models.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is growing interest in pre-training antibody language models (AbLMs) with a mixture of unpaired and natively paired sequences, seeking to combine the proven benefits of training with natively paired sequences with the massive scale of unpaired antibody sequence datasets. However, given the novelty of this strategy, the field lacks a systematic evaluation of data processing methods and training strategies that maximize the benefits of mixed training data while accommodating the significant imbalance in the size of existing paired and unpaired datasets. Here, we introduce a method of curriculum learning for AbLMs, which facilitates a gradual transition from unpaired to paired sequences during training. We optimize this method and compare it to other data sampling strategies for AbLMs, including a constant mix and a fine-tuning approach. We observe that the curriculum and constant approaches show improved performance compared to the fine-tuning approach in large-scale models, likely due to their ability to prevent catastrophic forgetting and slow overfitting. Finally, we show that a 650M-parameter curriculum model, CurrAb, outperforms existing mixed AbLMs in downstream residue prediction and classification tasks.
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.