Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42737959›Full record

ReviewBiology2026

Biological Foundation Models for Complex Disease Research and Clinical Translation.

Tiana Noll-Walker, Yong Chen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Tiana Noll-WalkerDepartment of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ 08028, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-3613-8853
Yong ChenDepartment of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ 08028, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6827-4321

Funding

U.S. National Science Foundation 2531954U.S. National Science Foundation DBI-2239350
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Complex diseases, including cancer, rare genetic disorders, neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions, and neurodegenerative diseases, arise from interactions among genetic variation, gene regulation, and cellular states that are difficult to capture using a single data type or biological scale. Biological foundation models address this challenge by treating nucleotides and genes as tokens and learning representations that can be transferred to downstream biomedical and clinical tasks. In this review, we examine two major model classes, genomic sequence foundation models and cell foundation models, and compare their tokenization strategies, model architectures, pretraining objectives, and adaptation methods. We summarize their emerging applications in regulatory variant interpretation, disease-associated cell-state analysis, drug-response prediction, and therapeutic target discovery across complex diseases. We distinguish applications supported by experimental or retrospective validation from those that remain primarily computational or conceptual. We further discuss key challenges to clinical translation, including multimodal data integration, model interpretability, benchmarking, patient-specific prediction, and privacy protection. We highlight future opportunities to integrate biological foundation models with emerging frameworks of medical digital twins, agentic AI, and federated learning. By linking model design to translational goals, this review provides a practical framework for evaluating biological foundation models and their readiness for complex disease research and clinical use.

Indexed as

biological foundation modelcomplex diseaselarge language modelprecision medicinesingle-cell omics

Identifiers

PMID42737959
PMCPMC13564972

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.