ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2026
AI-driven computational methods and benchmarking for T-cell antigen identification.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence for translational personalized neoantigen cancer vaccine development.Journal of biomedical science · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rise of mRNA vaccines highlights the pivotal role of T-cell antigen identification in modern vaccinology and personalized medicine. T-cell recognition relies on the sophisticated ternary interaction between the T-cell receptor (TCR), the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecule, and the peptide antigen, which forms the peptide-MHC (pMHC) complex. Computational methods, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), are indispensable for accurately predicting these complex bindings. This review systematically surveys the rapidly evolving AI-driven landscape for T-cell antigen identification, providing a comprehensive categorization of methods for MHC-I, MHC-II, and the highly complex TCR-pMHC binding prediction, alongside foundational data resources. Crucially, we conduct a rigorous, standardized benchmarking of 18 state-of-the-art TCR-pMHC prediction models across diverse training data sources. Our evaluation on two distinct and challenging out-of-distribution (OOD) unseen epitope variant datasets reveals a significant and concerning generalization gap in current predictors. Notably, the overall absolute predictive gain remains marginal across all models under OOD conditions. This result underscores a severe and persistent generalization challenge when faced with novel epitope variants. To address these limitations, we emphasize the urgent need for enhanced structural modeling, the integration of multi-omics data, and the development of generative models for de novo TCR design. By advancing these computational frontiers, our community can accelerate the transition from prediction to rational design in immunoinformatics.
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.