ArticlemAbs2026
Ginkgo Datapoints Antibody Developability Competition outcomes: limited model performance and a call for data standardization.
Article in mAbs, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection.2026
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Ginkgo Datapoints Antibody Developability (AbDev) Competition, a blinded benchmark for developability prediction characterized entirely on a single, industrial-scale experimental platform, was conducted from September 8 to November 18, 2025. We benchmarked predictors across five biophysical properties - hydrophobicity, thermostability, self-association, expression titer, and polyreactivity - using a public training set of 246 clinical antibodies and a blinded, held-out test set of 80 antibodies. We received submissions from 113 teams spanning 25 countries, 38 companies, and 39 universities. Winning submissions differed by assay. Top Spearman's ρ values on the test set reached 0.708 (hydrophobicity), 0.392 (thermostability), 0.356 (polyreactivity), 0.337 (self-association), and 0.310 (titer). Cross-validation scores from the public training set consistently exceeded held-out test performance, indicating overfitting and limited out-of-distribution generalization. Together, these results provide a standardized snapshot of current antibody developability modeling capabilities and highlight a key bottleneck: available datasets are too small and heterogeneous to support robust, assay-spanning prediction. Meaningful progress will require larger, standardized, and diverse experimental datasets - with harmonized protocols and rich metadata - to train and validate models that generalize reliably for future antibody discovery campaigns.
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.