ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2026
seqLens: Optimizing Language Models for Genomic Predictions.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- resLens: genomic language models to enhance antibiotic resistance gene detection.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2026Article
- The DNA dialect: a comprehensive guide to pretrained genomic language models.Molecular systems biology · 2026Review
- Editorial: Methods for imaging and omics data science: advances, applications, and spatiotemporal innovations.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
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
Understanding evolutionary variation in genomic sequences through the lens of language modeling has the potential to revolutionize biological research. Yet to maximize the utility of language modeling in genomics, we must overcome computational challenges in tokenization and model architecture adapted to diverse genomic features across evolutionary timescales. In this study, we investigated key elements in genomic language modeling (gLM), including tokenization, pretraining datasets, fine-tuning approaches, pooling methods, and domain adaptation, and applied the language models to diverse genomic data. We gathered two evolutionarily distinct pretraining datasets: one consisting of 19,551 reference genomes, including over 18,000 prokaryotic genomes (115 B nucleotides) and the remainder eukaryotic genomes, and another more balanced dataset with 1,354 genomes, including 1,166 prokaryotic and 188 eukaryotic reference genomes (180 B nucleotides). We trained five byte-pair encoding tokenizers and pretrained 52 gLMs, systematically comparing different architectures, hyperparameters, and classification heads. We introduce seqLens, a family of models based on disentangled attention with relative positional encoding, which outperforms relatively similar-sized models in 13 of 19 benchmarking phenotypic predictions. We further explore continual pretraining, domain adaptation, and parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods to assess trade-offs between computational efficiency and accuracy. Our findings demonstrate that relevant pretraining data significantly boost performance, alternative pooling techniques can enhance classification, tokenizers with larger vocabulary sizes negatively impact generalization, and gLMs are capable of understanding evolutionary relationships. These insights provide a foundation for optimizing genomic language models for identifying diverse evolutionary genomic features and improving genome annotations.
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.