ArticleViruses2026
ViroBioTree: A Tree-Structured Biological Evidence Retrieval Framework for Viral Protein Function Annotation.
Article in Viruses, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate viral protein function annotation is essential for genomic surveillance, yet conventional retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines often fragment biological evidence into fixed-length text chunks, disrupting relationships among ORFs, annotations, structural domains, sequence motifs, residue mappings, and model-derived attention evidence. We propose ViroBioTree, a tree-structured biological evidence retrieval framework for downstream viral protein evidence review rather than a new primary annotation classifier. Built as an evidence organization layer on ViralMultiNet-derived ORF-level predictions and annotations, ViroBioTree converts sequence, annotation, structure, and attention evidence into typed biological nodes and traceable edges, then performs deterministic multi-channel recall, evidence-aware reranking, balanced TopK selection, rule-based verification, and node-cited report generation. In a demo benchmark, ViroBioTree achieved its strongest deterministic proxy performance on structure-explanation tasks, with Precision@K = 1.0, Recall@K = 1.0, and diversity = 0.52; these values reflect expected node-type and tag agreement rather than independent biological correctness. A bounded full-scale SARS-CoV-2 index contained 39,800 ORF rows, 80,000 attention records, 199,418 nodes, and 495,886 edges. In a stratified full20k diagnostic evaluation, ViroBioTree showed task-dependent advantages over LlamaIndex vector retrieval for conflict detection, evidence retrieval, and structure explanation, while LlamaIndex remained competitive or stronger for annotation-rich function annotation. A cross-family Influenza A Virus (IAV) diagnostic audit showed that the schema can represent IAV evidence namespaces while explicitly exposing missing formal ORF inputs, missing attention evidence, and unavailable residue/PDB assertions. Supplementary robustness, external sanity-check, diversity-risk, expert-evaluation, domain-tool positioning, and cross-family audit analyses supported traceability, report quality, and conservative evidence handling, but also showed that stable Precision@K under query perturbation does not necessarily imply stable retrieved evidence sets. ViroBioTree operates offline and deterministically, but does not address raw-read assembly, base calling, primary ORF prediction, or wet-lab validation. Its results should be interpreted as proxy and expert-reviewed evidence for traceable viral protein evidence retrieval and report generation rather than as direct validation of biological function annotation.
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.