ArticlePloS one2026
Analyzing the performance of deep learning splice prediction algorithms.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
SpliceAI is the leading tool for predicting splice-altering variants, but restrictive licensing limits clinical adoption. While open-source implementations have been published with author-reported comparisons, independent benchmarking across diverse datasets is needed to establish equivalence. We compared the original SpliceAI with two open-source implementations (OpenSpliceAI and CI-SpliceAI) and a legacy ensemble baseline across six datasets: a curated set of 1,316 validated variants, 213 variants with splice-assay data, 99,601 variants from the SPiP splicing prediction study, 242 manually curated deep intronic pathogenic variants, and two ClinVar-derived datasets comprising 53,600 intronic variants and 58,064 variants spanning all genomic contexts. The deep learning models were also evaluated against an ensemble of four legacy splice-prediction tools. Across all datasets, the deep learning algorithms outperformed the legacy ensemble. All three deep learning algorithms showed similar performance on the larger datasets dominated by canonical splice site variants (balanced accuracies 0.889-0.977). On the deep intronic benchmark, the original SpliceAI achieved the highest balanced accuracy (0.940), outperforming both CI-SpliceAI (0.890) and OpenSpliceAI (0.841). Critically, optimal thresholds for deep intronic variants were an order of magnitude lower than standard recommendations, indicating that default thresholds would miss the majority of pathogenic deep intronic variants. A correlation analysis showed that CI-SpliceAI maintained balanced concordance across event types, whereas OpenSpliceAI showed stronger correlation for loss events than gain events. Both implementations showed high positional agreement with SpliceAI, with exact splice-site match rates exceeding 90% across event types. Together, these results demonstrate that both open-source reimplementations of SpliceAI successfully reproduce the predictive behavior of the original algorithm across multiple evaluation contexts, while consistently outperforming traditional splice prediction methods. However, performance diverges on deeply intronic variants, and standard score thresholds are poorly calibrated for this variant class regardless of algorithm choice.
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.