ArticleNature biotechnology2026
A blinded, prospective benchmark of in silico antibody discovery anchored to experimental affinity and developability.
Article in Nature biotechnology, 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.
- Origins and consequences of oncogenic 3D chromatin remodelling.Nature reviews. Cancer · 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
117 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Experimentally validated prospective, blinded benchmarks are needed to separate durable advances from hype in computational antibody design. Here AIntibody, a challenge inspired by the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction, tests 511 artificial intelligence (AI)-designed or predicted antibodies from 29 organizations on three tasks: in silico affinity maturation from phase 1 sequencing outputs, affinity ranking within heavy-chain complementarity-determining region 3 (HCDR3) clusters of a selection output and CDR design of proteins not included in a selection output. Validated with diverse experimental assays, several groups produced developable antibodies with affinities <100 pM. However, these successes were exceptions that did not transfer across tasks. Affinity-matured antibodies were modeled effectively. Except for one model, predicting high-affinity clones from clustered HCDR3 datasets was worse than random clone picking. Out-of-library design was highly variable for most method submissions, with many failing to outperform standard selections. The AIntibody challenge shows that AI can optimize antibodies in defined, biologically grounded regimes, in addition to highlighting critical gaps including affinity prediction and library-inspired antibody design and cross-task generalization.
Identifiers
42618805What 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.