Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42635124›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2026

Limits of deep-learning-based RNA prediction methods.

Marko Ludaic, Arne Elofsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Marko LudaicScience for Life Laboratory and Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Stockholm University, Solna 171 21, Sweden.
Arne ElofssonScience for Life Laboratory and Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Stockholm University, Solna 171 21, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-7115-9751

Funding

Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation 2022.0032National Supercomputer Centre at Linköping UniversitySNIC Berzelius-2021-29SNIC SNIC 2021/5-297Vetenskapsrådet 2021-03979Vetenskapsrådet 2025-03811
6 · The paper itself

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

Computational BiologyDeep LearningRNAAlgorithmsModels, MolecularNucleic Acid ConformationPrediction AlgorithmsRNA FoldingSoftwareRNA

Identifiers

PMID42635124
PMCPMC13501138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.