Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Deciphering genomic codes using advanced NLP techniques: a scoping review

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A scoping review of 26 studies reports that tokenization and transformer models—the machinery of large language models—are now enhancing how genomic sequences are processed and understood, especially for predicting regulatory annotations.

desk verdict A useful but sloppy scoping review: the 26-study map is plausible, but the unreproducible search strategy and checkable errors mean it needs major revision before it can be treated as a reliable map. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16084 v1 pith:5QGEHUOB submitted 2024-11-25 q-bio.GN cs.AI

Shuyan Cheng , Yishu Wei , Yiliang Zhou , Zihan Xu , Drew N Wright , Jinze Liu , Yifan Peng This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.GNcs.AI
keywords naturallanguageprocessinglargemodelsgenomicsequencingtokenizationtransformerarchitectureregulatoryannotationsscopingreviewDNA
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review seeks to map how natural language processing techniques, particularly large language models and transformer architectures, are being applied to genomic sequencing data, and whether recent literature supports the idea that these methods improve genomic analysis. Across 26 studies published between 2021 and April 2024, it finds that tokenization choices and transformer backbones are central to performance, with successful applications in predicting regulatory annotations such as transcription-factor binding sites, methylation sites, and chromatin accessibility. The review also documents that most datasets and models are publicly accessible and that computational demands vary widely, from heavy pretraining to lightweight feature extraction. If the synthesis is right, NLP-based genomic analysis is a practical and rapidly expanding route toward interpreting non-coding and regulatory parts of the genome, with downstream relevance for personalized medicine.

What carries the argument

The two load-bearing components the review tracks are tokenization and the transformer architecture. Tokenization converts raw DNA or RNA sequences into discrete units—most often k-mers (overlapping fixed-length substrings), byte-pair-encoding subwords, or fixed nucleotide fragments—so that sequence context can be treated like text. The transformer, typically a BERT-style encoder with multi-head self-attention, then captures long-range dependencies and contextual relationships among those tokens; a lightweight classifier is usually added on top to predict regulatory annotations such as binding sites, methylation status, chromatin accessibility, and RNA interactions. The review's argument is that this two-stage pipeline, borrowed from NLP, is what lets genomic models reach the reported predictive accuracy.

What would settle it

A concrete way to test the central claim would be to build a benchmark that applies several of the surveyed tokenizers (k-mer, byte-pair encoding, fixed nucleotide) and transformer variants to the same set of regulatory-annotation tasks with identical evaluation protocols, and check whether transformer models consistently beat simpler sequence models; if a well-tuned CNN or k-mer counting baseline matches or exceeds the transformer results across tasks, the review's conclusion that transformers enhance genomic processing would not hold as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central finding is that tokenization and transformer models enhance the processing and understanding of genomic data, particularly for predicting regulatory annotations. It surveys 26 studies selected from six databases and shows a consistent pattern: k-mer tokenization is the dominant preprocessing strategy, BERT-style transformers are the dominant architecture, and the most common downstream tasks are predictions of transcription-factor binding sites, methylation and CpG islands, enhancers, promoters, chromatin accessibility, and RNA interactions. The review reports performance metrics such as F1 scores above 0.8 for several models and notes that model and data availability are generally good, while computational requirements span a wide range.

Load-bearing premise

The review's conclusion depends on the assumption that its database searches and eligibility criteria caught the relevant population of NLP-for-genomics studies and that the performance numbers reported by the 26 included papers are accurate and comparable across datasets; if major models were missed or metrics are inflated or inconsistent, the field would look more capable than it is.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • K-mer tokenization is currently the default choice for genomic language models, so improvements in tokenization could shift performance across many downstream tasks.
  • Transformer-based models, especially BERT variants, are being used as feature extractors for regulatory annotation prediction, meaning pretrained genomic language models can be reused for multiple tasks.
  • Predictive targets cluster around regulatory biology—transcription-factor binding, methylation, chromatin accessibility, and non-coding RNA interactions—so the near-term payoff of NLP in genomics is chiefly in regulatory annotation rather than whole-genome interpretation.
  • Because most included models and datasets are publicly accessible, replication and fine-tuning on new genomic datasets should be feasible without starting from scratch.
  • Computational cost varies enormously: pretraining a genomic BERT can require days on many GPUs, while using existing embeddings as features is comparatively cheap, which affects who can enter the field.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the reported metrics are taken at face value, it would be worth testing whether simple k-mer counts plus a conventional classifier already capture most of the signal attributed to transformers, since the review does not include negative controls or ablations.
  • The review's emphasis on DNA sequences and cancer-related tasks suggests that non-human genomes, rare diseases, and neurodegenerative conditions are under-explored niches where genomic language models could be tested next.
  • A direct extension would be a benchmark that runs several of the surveyed tokenizers and backbones on the same regulatory-annotation datasets to see whether the apparent advantage of transformers survives controlled comparison.
  • The trend toward multimodal data, such as genomic sequences combined with transcriptomic, proteomic, or imaging data, implies that the next generation of genomic language models may be evaluated on fusion tasks rather than sequence-only prediction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper is a PRISMA-style scoping review of NLP and large language model (LLM) techniques applied to genomic sequencing data. The authors report a systematic search of bibliographic databases, identify 26 studies published between 2021 and April 2024, and synthesize them along three axes: tokenization (k-mers, BPE, fixed nucleotide tokenization), transformer architectures (BERT variants, encoder blocks, attention mechanisms), and downstream tasks centered on regulatory annotation prediction (methylation sites, transcription-factor binding, promoter prediction, RNA interactions, cancer-related tasks). The review concludes that tokenization and transformer models enhance genomic data processing, particularly for regulatory annotation prediction, and discusses challenges such as model interpretability, tokenizer selection, and computational resource demands.

Significance. If the search strategy were reproducible and the bibliographic record reliable, this review would be a useful structured map of a fast-moving field, consolidating model names, tasks, data types, and reported performance metrics in one place. The paper's strengths are its explicit PRISMA framing, the detailed per-study table (Table 1), the summary metric table (Table 2), and an unusually candid limitations section. However, the central descriptive claim—that these 26 studies represent the relevant population of NLP-for-genomics work—currently rests on a search protocol that cannot be reproduced from the manuscript, and there are verifiable bibliographic and factual errors. These are correctable in revision but are load-bearing for a scoping review's principal purpose.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2 and Appendix B] The information sources are described inconsistently: the abstract lists PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and ACM, while §2.2 adds IEEE Xplore, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Ovid MEDLINE/EMBASE. More seriously, the search strategies in Appendix B cannot have been executed as printed: the ACM query contains bare bracket fields such as '[Abstract: or]' and '[Abstract: or "nlp" or "llm" or]' and ends with dangling Boolean operators, and no search strings are given for IEEE Xplore, Google Scholar, or Semantic Scholar. Because the review's landscape claim depends on identifying the relevant study population, the reported protocol does not currently support the statement that the 26 included studies constitute a complete or representative corpus. Please provide corrected queries and report per-database hit counts and deduplication numbers.
  2. [References [5] and [43]] References [5] and [43] carry the same title, 'Effect of tokenization on transformers for biological sequences,' but [5] is attributed to 'John Smith, Anne Lee, and Chris Tan' in bioRxiv 2023, whereas [43] is the verifiable Bioinformatics 2024 article by Dotan et al. with the same title. This is a checkable attribution error and indicates that the bibliography has not been verified against authoritative sources. Please correct the citation or remove the duplicate, and verify all references for author, title, and DOI accuracy.
  3. [§3.3] The sentence 'Zhang et al. trained on 6,000 GPUs [30]' is implausible for the cited miTDS model [30], a fine-tuned BERT-based miRNA-mRNA interaction predictor with 110M parameters according to Table 1, and the claim is not supported by the cited article as far as the manuscript reports. Reporting an unsupported GPU count misrepresents the computational requirements of the reviewed methods and should be corrected with the actual training configuration or removed.
  4. [Appendix A and §2.1] The PRISMA checklist narrative states that 'risk of bias' and 'certainty of evidence' were assessed, but no risk-of-bias tool, no certainty assessment method, and no corresponding results appear in the methods or results sections. A scoping review under PRISMA-ScR does not require risk-of-bias assessment, but claiming it without reporting it is misleading. Please either implement and report these assessments or revise the PRISMA description to match what was actually done.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §2.2] Please harmonize the database list between the abstract and the body; the current discrepancy (six databases in the abstract versus ten in the body) is confusing and undermines the reproducibility narrative.
  2. [Appendix B] The search dates '04/12/24' and '04/15/24' are ambiguous; use an unambiguous format such as '12 April 2024' to avoid confusion between April 12 and December 4.
  3. [§3.2, Cancer Research and Oncology] The sentence beginning 'models have been developed to investigate the reusability and generalizability of cell-type annotation in single-cell RNA sequencing data' appears twice in the same paragraph; please remove the duplicate.
  4. [Table 1] The columns 'Model Derived Data' and 'Model Availability' are not labeled with two clear subheadings, making entries like 'Yes\Yes' ambiguous; please separate data availability and model availability into distinct columns with explicit headers.
  5. [References [7] and [8]] Please verify the author lists of references [7] and [8]; the names 'Rohan Patel, Shalini Gupta, and Wei Wang' and 'Emily Brown, David Harris, and Ming Zhang' are generic and could not be confirmed against the cited sources during review.
  6. [§2.4] The PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1) is referenced, but the text does not report the initial number of records identified or the number remaining after deduplication; reporting these numbers would strengthen transparency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: descriptive scoping review summarizes independent reports; conclusions are inductive syntheses, not derivations from their own inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a descriptive scoping review, not a derivation. It defines eligibility criteria (Section 2.1), reports a search and screening process (Sections 2.2-2.4), and then summarizes the 26 selected studies' methods and reported metrics (Section 3, Tables 1-2). The central claim that 'tokenization and transformer models enhance the processing and understanding of genomic data' is an inductive synthesis of the included papers' reported results, not a quantity computed from the same data used to define the claim. No parameter is fitted from the included studies and then renamed as a prediction; no stated equation makes the conclusion equal to an input by construction; and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation by the present authors (the reference list contains no works by Cheng, Wei, Zhou, Xu, Wright, Liu, or Peng). The review even acknowledges its own scope limitations in the Discussion. The skeptic's concerns about malformed Appendix B queries, inconsistent database lists between the abstract and Section 2.2, and the bibliographic oddity of reference [5] are legitimate reproducibility and quality criticisms, but they concern search completeness and reporting accuracy, not circular reasoning. Under the hard rules, absent an exhibited reduction of a claim to its input, no circular step is identified, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities. The review relies on standard scoping-review methodology and the trustworthiness of the summarized studies.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption PRISMA guidelines provide a valid framework for conducting a scoping review
    The review's conclusions about the state of the literature rely on PRISMA-based search and screening being appropriate for scoping reviews (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption The included studies' reported performance metrics are accurate and comparable
    The review's claims that NLP models 'enhance' genomic analysis rest on unverified metrics from 26 third-party papers (Section 3, Table 2).
  • domain assumption The databases and search terms provide comprehensive coverage of relevant literature
    The completeness of the scoping review depends on the choice of databases and keyword combinations (Section 2.2), but the authors do not validate coverage against known key models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deciphering genomic codes using advanced NLP techniques: a scoping review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5QGEHUOB

@misc{pith2026241116084,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deciphering genomic codes using advanced NLP techniques: a scoping review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5QGEHUOB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16084}
}
read the original abstract

Objectives: The vast and complex nature of human genomic sequencing data presents challenges for effective analysis. This review aims to investigate the application of Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs) and transformer architectures, in deciphering genomic codes, focusing on tokenization, transformer models, and regulatory annotation prediction. The goal of this review is to assess data and model accessibility in the most recent literature, gaining a better understanding of the existing capabilities and constraints of these tools in processing genomic sequencing data. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, our scoping review was conducted across PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and ACM Digital Library. Studies were included if they focused on NLP methodologies applied to genomic sequencing data analysis, without restrictions on publication date or article type. Results: A total of 26 studies published between 2021 and April 2024 were selected for review. The review highlights that tokenization and transformer models enhance the processing and understanding of genomic data, with applications in predicting regulatory annotations like transcription-factor binding sites and chromatin accessibility. Discussion: The application of NLP and LLMs to genomic sequencing data interpretation is a promising field that can help streamline the processing of large-scale genomic data while also providing a better understanding of its complex structures. It has the potential to drive advancements in personalized medicine by offering more efficient and scalable solutions for genomic analysis. Further research is also needed to discuss and overcome current limitations, enhancing model transparency and applicability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16084 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart of the literature review process according to PRISMA guidelines. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    Effect of tokenization on transformers for biological sequences

    John Smith, Anne Lee, and Chris Tan. Effect of tokenization on transformers for biological sequences. bioRxiv, 2023. doi: 10.1101/2023.08.15.553415

    work page doi:10.1101/2023.08.15.553415 2023

  2. [43]

    Effect of tokenization on transformers for biological sequences

    Edo Dotan, Gal Jaschek, Tal Pupko, and Yonatan Belinkov. Effect of tokenization on transformers for biological sequences. Bioinformatics, 40(4):btae196, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [30]

    Bcmcmi: A fusion model for predicting circrna-mirna interactions combining semantic and meta-path

    Meng-Meng Wei, Chang-Qing Yu, Li-Ping Li, Zhu-Hong You, and Lei Wang. Bcmcmi: A fusion model for predicting circrna-mirna interactions combining semantic and meta-path. Journal of Chem- ical Information and Modeling, 63:5384–5394, 2023. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.3c00952

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.3c00952 2023

  4. [1]

    Representation learning applications in biological sequence analysis

    Zongyi Yang and Fei Guo. Representation learning applications in biological sequence analysis. Com- putational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 19:5031–5040, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2021.09.0 21

    work page doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2021.09.0 2021

  5. [2]

    Large models for genomics

    Jennifer Mullen, Juan Beltran, Eleonora Marasco, Michelle McGee, and James Shen. Large models for genomics. Nature Methods, 2023. doi: 10.1038/s41592-023-02105-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-023-02105-5 2023

  6. [3]

    Human genome, 2024

    ScienceDirect Topics. Human genome, 2024. Accessed: 2024-08-12

    work page 2024

  7. [4]

    McPherson, and W

    Sara Goodwin, John D. McPherson, and W. Richard McCombie. Coming of age: ten years of next- generation sequencing technologies. Nature Reviews Genetics, 17(6):333–351, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [6]

    Enhancing machine learning prediction in computational chemistry by chemical language representa- tions

    Qiwei Wang, Lukasz Maziarka, Dariusz Zasada, Marcin Walczak, Bo Wang, and Mateusz Wysocki. Enhancing machine learning prediction in computational chemistry by chemical language representa- tions. WIREs Computational Molecular Science, 13(5):e1725, 2023. doi: 10.1002/wcms.1725

    doi:10.1002/wcms.1725 2023

Show all 57 references
  1. [7]

    To transformers and beyond: Large language models for the genome

    Rohan Patel, Shalini Gupta, and Wei Wang. To transformers and beyond: Large language models for the genome. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07621, 2023. 14

    2023 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Transformer architecture and attention mechanisms in genome data analysis: A comprehensive review

    Emily Brown, David Harris, and Ming Zhang. Transformer architecture and attention mechanisms in genome data analysis: A comprehensive review. Biology, 12(7):1033, 2023. doi: 10.3390/biology120 71033

    2023 doi

  3. [9]

    melbourne, australia, 2024

    Covidence systematic review software, veritas health innovation. melbourne, australia, 2024. Available at www.covidence.org

    2024

  4. [10]

    Novel transformer networks for improved sequence labeling in genomics

    Jim Clauwaert and Willem Waegeman. Novel transformer networks for improved sequence labeling in genomics. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 19(1):97–106,

  5. [11]

    Cpg island detection using transformer model with conditional random field

    Md Jubaer Hossain, Mohammed Imamul Hassan Bhuiyan, and Zaowad Rahabin Abdullah. Cpg island detection using transformer model with conditional random field. In IEEE Bombay Section Signature Conference (IBSSC). IEEE, 2022. doi: 10.1109/IBSSC56953.2022.10037492

    2022

  6. [12]

    Davuluri

    Yanrong Ji, Zhihan Zhou, Han Liu, and Ramana V . Davuluri. Dnabert: pre-trained bidirectional en- coder representations from transformers model for dna-language in genome. Bioinformatics, 37(15): 2112–2120, 2021. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab083

    2021 doi

  7. [13]

    A trans- former architecture based on bert and 2d convolutional neural network to identify dna enhancers from sequence information

    Nguyen Quoc Khanh Le, Quang-Thai Ho, Trinh-Trung-Duong Nguyen, and Yu-Yen Ou. A trans- former architecture based on bert and 2d convolutional neural network to identify dna enhancers from sequence information. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 22(5):bbab005, 2021. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbab005

    2021 doi

  8. [14]

    Bert-promoter: An improved sequence-based predictor of dna promoter using bert pre-trained model and shap feature selection

    Nguyen Quoc Khanh Le, Quang-Thai Ho, Van-Nui Nguyen, and Jung-Su Chang. Bert-promoter: An improved sequence-based predictor of dna promoter using bert pre-trained model and shap feature selection. Computational Biology and Chemistry, 99:107732, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiolche...

    2022 doi

  9. [15]

    Improving language model of human genome for dna–protein binding prediction based on task-specific pre-training

    Hanyu Luo, Wenyu Shan, Cheng Chen, Pingjian Ding, and Lingyun Luo. Improving language model of human genome for dna–protein binding prediction based on task-specific pre-training. Interdisci- plinary Sciences: Computational Life Sciences, 15:32–43, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s12539-02...

    2023 doi

  10. [17]

    Gene- mask: Fast pretraining of gene sequences to enable few-shot learning

    Soumyadeep Roy, Jonas Wallat, Sowmya S Sundaram, Wolfgang Nejdl, and Niloy Ganguly. Gene- mask: Fast pretraining of gene sequences to enable few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI). IOS Press, 2023. doi: 10.3233/FAIA230492

    2023 doi

  11. [18]

    Bert-5mc: an interpretable model for predicting 5-methylcytosine sites of dna based on bert

    Shuyu Wang, Yinbo Liu, Yufeng Liu, Yong Zhang, and Xiaolei Zhu. Bert-5mc: an interpretable model for predicting 5-methylcytosine sites of dna based on bert. PeerJ, 11:e16600, 2023. doi: 10.7717/peer j.16600

    2023 doi

  12. [19]

    Genome-wide identi- fication and characterization of dna enhancers with a stacked multivariate fusion framework

    Yansong Wang, Zilong Hou, Yuning Yang, Ka-chun Wong, and Xiangtao Li. Genome-wide identi- fication and characterization of dna enhancers with a stacked multivariate fusion framework. PLOS Computational Biology, 18(12):e1010779, 2022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010779. Publishe...

    2022 doi

  13. [20]

    Predicting protein- dna binding sites by fine-tuning bert

    Yue Zhang, Yuehui Chen, Baitong Chen, Yi Cao, Jiazhi Chen, and Hanhan Cong. Predicting protein- dna binding sites by fine-tuning bert. In De-Shuang Huang, Kang Hyun Jo, Jung Hwa Jung, Prashan 15 Premaratne, Vitantonio Bevilacqua, and Abir Hussain, editors, Intelligent Computin...

    2022

  14. [21]

    Semanticcap: Chromatin accessibility prediction enhanced by features learning from a language model

    Yikang Zhang, Xiaomin Chu, Yelu Jiang, Hongjie Wu, and Lijun Quan. Semanticcap: Chromatin accessibility prediction enhanced by features learning from a language model. Genes, 13:568, 2022. doi: 10.3390/genes13040568

    2022 doi

  15. [22]

    W. An, Y . Guo, Y . Bian, H. Ma, J. Yang, C. Li, and J. Huang. MoDNA: Motif-oriented pre-training for DNA language model. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Health Informatics (BCB ’22) . Association for Computi...

  16. [23]

    Cpg island detection using modified transformer model with pre–trained embedding

    Md Jubaer Hossain, Mohammed Imamul Hassan Bhuiyan, and Zaowad Rahabin Abdullah. Cpg island detection using modified transformer model with pre–trained embedding. In 2023 26th International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT), pages 1–4. IEEE, 2023. doi: 1...

    2023

  17. [24]

    doi: 10.1145/3535508.3545512

  18. [25]

    Wenhuan Zeng, Anupam Gautam, and Daniel H. Huson. Mulan-methyl—multiple transformer-based language models for accurate dna methylation prediction. GigaScience, 12:1–11, 2023. doi: 10.1093/ gigascience/giad054

    2023

  19. [26]

    Predicting gene expression levels from dna sequences and post-transcriptional information with transformers

    Vittorio Pipoli, Mattia Cappelli, Alessandro Palladini, Carlo Peluso, Marta Lovino, and Elisa Fi- carra. Predicting gene expression levels from dna sequences and post-transcriptional information with transformers. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine , 225:107035, 2022...

    2022

  20. [27]

    Mt- tlm6a: A multi-task transfer learning approach for base-resolution mrna m6a site prediction based on an improved transformer

    Honglei Wang, Wenliang Zeng, Xiaoling Huang, Zhaoyang Liu, Yanjing Sun, and Lin Zhang. Mt- tlm6a: A multi-task transfer learning approach for base-resolution mrna m6a site prediction based on an improved transformer. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering , 21:272–299, 2023....

    2023 doi

  21. [28]

    Mscan: multi- scale self- and cross-attention network for rna methylation site prediction

    Honglei Wang, Tao Huang, Dong Wang, Wenliang Zeng, Yanjing Sun, and Lin Zhang. Mscan: multi- scale self- and cross-attention network for rna methylation site prediction. BMC Bioinformatics, 25: 32, 2024. doi: 10.1186/s12859-024-05649-1

    2024 doi

  22. [29]

    An efficient circrna-mirna interaction prediction model by combining biological text mining and wavelet diffusion-based sparse network structure embedding

    Xin-Fei Wang, Chang-Qing Yu, Zhu-Hong You, Yan Qiao, Zheng-Wei Li, and Wen-Zhun Huang. An efficient circrna-mirna interaction prediction model by combining biological text mining and wavelet diffusion-based sparse network structure embedding. Computers in Biology and Medicine ...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Tmsc-m7g: A transformer architecture based on multi- sense-scaled embedding features and convolutional neural network to identify rna n7-methylguanosine 16 sites

    Shengli Zhang, Yujie Xu, and Yunyun Liang. Tmsc-m7g: A transformer architecture based on multi- sense-scaled embedding features and convolutional neural network to identify rna n7-methylguanosine 16 sites. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 23:129–139, 2024. d...

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    mitds: Uncovering mirna-mrna interactions with deep learning for functional target prediction

    Jialin Zhang, Haoran Zhu, Yin Liu, and Xiangtao Li. mitds: Uncovering mirna-mrna interactions with deep learning for functional target prediction. Methods, 223:65–74, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2023 .107733

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Transformer- based gene scoring model for extracting representative characteristic of central dogma process to pri- oritize pathogenic genes applying breast cancer multi-omics data

    Jong Ho Jhee, Min-Young Song, Byung Gon Kim, Hyunjung Shin, and Soo Youn Lee. Transformer- based gene scoring model for extracting representative characteristic of central dogma process to pri- oritize pathogenic genes applying breast cancer multi-omics data. In 2023 IEEE Inte...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Transformer-based dna methylation detection on ionic signals from oxford nanopore sequencing data

    Xiuquan Wang, Mian Umair Ahsan, Yunyun Zhou, and Kai Wang. Transformer-based dna methylation detection on ionic signals from oxford nanopore sequencing data. Quantitative Biology, 11(3):287– 296, 2023. doi: 10.15302/J-QB-022-0323. First published: 17 October 2023

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Alzheimer’s disease classification through imaging genetic data with ignet

    Jade Xiaoqing Wang, Yimei Li, Xintong Li, and Zhao-Hua Lu. Alzheimer’s disease classification through imaging genetic data with ignet. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 16:846638, 2022. doi: 10.3389/ fnins.2022.846638

    2022

  28. [36]

    Setquence & setomic: Deep set transformer-based representations of cancer multi-omics

    Neringa Jurenaite, Daniel Le ´on-Peri˜n´an, Veronika Donath, Sunna Torge, and Ren´e J¨akel. Setquence & setomic: Deep set transformer-based representations of cancer multi-omics. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology ...

    2022

  29. [37]

    BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Langu...

    2019

  30. [38]

    Guan-Da Huang, Xue-Mei Liu, Tian-Lai Huang, and Li-C. Xia. The statistical power of k-mer based aggregative statistics for alignment-free detection of horizontal gene transfer. Synthetic and Systems Biotechnology, 4(4):150–156, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.synbio.2019.09.001

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Conditional random fields: probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data

    John Lafferty, Andrew McCallum, and Fernando Pereira. Conditional random fields: probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), page 282–289, Bellevue, Washington, USA, 2001

    2001

  32. [40]

    scGPT: toward building a foundation model for single-cell multi-omics using generative AI

    Haotian Cui, Chloe Wang, Hassaan Maan, Kuan Pang, Fengning Luo, Nan Duan, and Bo Wang. scGPT: toward building a foundation model for single-cell multi-omics using generative AI. Nature Methods, 21:1470–1480, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41592-024-02201-0

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Nlp course - chapter 6, section 5: Byte-pair encoding, 2024

    Hugging Face. Nlp course - chapter 6, section 5: Byte-pair encoding, 2024. URL https://hugg ingface.co/learn/nlp-course/en/chapter6/5. Accessed: 2024-08-25

    2024

  34. [42]

    Schwartz, Katherine E

    Ilan S. Schwartz, Katherine E. Link, Roxana Daneshjou, and Nicol ´as Cort ´es-Penfield. Black box warning: Large language models and the future of infectious diseases consultation. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 78(4):860–866, 2024. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciad633. 17

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    Gonzalo Benegas, Chengzhong Ye, Carlos Albors, Jianan Canal Li, and Yun S. Song. Genomic lan- guage models: Opportunities and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11435, July 2024. Computer Science Division, University of California, Berkeley; Department of Statistics, Univer...

    2024 arXiv

  36. [47]

    Gene co-expression network analysis reveals common system-level properties of prognostic genes across cancer types

    Yuedong Yang, Liang Han, Yong Yuan, Jie Li, Nian Hei, and Hao Liang. Gene co-expression network analysis reveals common system-level properties of prognostic genes across cancer types. Nature Communications, 5:3231, 2014. doi: 10.1038/ncomms4231. 18 A PRISMA checklist This rev...

    2014 doi

  37. [48]

    exp Natural Language Processing/

  38. [50]

    exp Genetic Association Studies/

  39. [51]

    exp Polymorphism, Genetic/

  40. [54]

    4 AND 8 AND 9 Embase (04/12/24)

  41. [55]

    exp natural language processing/

  42. [56]

    ((natural adj2 language adj2 process*) OR (large adj2 language adj2 model*) OR ”NLP” OR ”LLM” OR ((data OR text) adj2 (mine* OR ”mining”)) OR ”named entity” OR semantic).ti,ab

  43. [57]

    exp genetic association study/

  44. [58]

    exp genetic polymorphism/

  45. [59]

    (genet* OR genom* OR genot* OR sequenc* OR ((single adj2 nucleotide adj2 polymorph*) OR ”SNP*”)).ti,ab

  46. [60]

    (token* OR ”transformer” OR ”bert” OR (regulat* adj2 annotat*)).ti,ab

  47. [61]

    4 AND 8 AND 9 PubMed (04/12/24) (”Natural Language Processing”[Mesh] OR ”Data Mining”[Mesh] OR NLP OR LLM OR ”Nat- ural Language Processing” OR ”data mining”) AND (”Genetic Association Studies”[Mesh] OR ”Polymorphism, Genetic”[Mesh] OR genet* OR genom* OR genot* OR sequenc* OR...

  48. [2019]

    doi: 10.18653/v1/N19-1423

    Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N19-1423

    doi

  49. [2022]

    doi: 10.1109/TCBB.2020.3035021

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.