ArticleNucleic acids research2026
Limits of deep-learning-based RNA prediction methods.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hierarchical breakdown of RNA structure prediction in CASP16: from reliable local helices to speculative multimer assembly.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Template-based RNA structure prediction advanced through a blind code competition.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Unveiling Let-7a's Therapeutic Role in Ewing Sarcoma Through Molecular Docking and Deformation Energy Analysis.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Article
- When does molecular dynamics improve RNA models? Insights from CASP15 and practical guidelines.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, tremendous advances have been made in predicting protein structures and protein-protein interactions, but progress on RNA structure, alone or in complex with other macromolecules, has lagged behind despite recent methodological developments. It remains unclear whether reported gains in accuracy generalize to novel RNA structures. Here, we benchmark 10 deep learning methods on an independent, non-redundant dataset of monomeric RNAs and RNA complexes. For monomeric RNA, AlphaFold3 and Boltz-1 achieve the best overall performance, but accuracy depends greatly on similarity to the training set: predictions are reliable mainly for RNAs with well-defined or recurring folds, such as L-shaped and simple loop structures, while structurally divergent RNAs remain poorly modelled. Extending the evaluation to RNA complexes, AlphaFold3 and Boltz-1 substantially outperform HelixFold3 and RosettaFoldNA, with no statistically significant difference between the two leading methods on most measures. Together, these results show that current methods are constrained by limited, structurally biased training data and recognize recurring motifs rather than generalize to novel RNA folds.
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.