ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
A Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models in Mining Gene Interactions and Pathway Knowledge.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Understanding complex biological pathways, including gene-gene interactions and gene regulatory networks, is critical for exploring disease mechanisms and drug development. Manual literature curation of biological pathways is useful but cannot keep up with the exponential growth of the literature. Large-scale language models (LLMs), notable for their vast parameter sizes and comprehensive training on extensive text corpora, have great potential in automated text mining of biological pathways. Method: This study assesses the effectiveness of 21 LLMs, including both API-based models and open-source models. The evaluation focused on two key aspects: gene regulatory relations (specifically, 'activation', 'inhibition', and 'phosphorylation') and KEGG pathway component recognition. The performance of these models was analyzed using statistical metrics such as precision, recall, F1 scores, and the Jaccard similarity index. Results: Our results indicated a significant disparity in model performance. Among the API-based models, ChatGPT-4 and Claude-Pro showed superior performance, with an F1 score of 0.4448 and 0.4386 for the gene regulatory relation prediction, and a Jaccard similarity index of 0.2778 and 0.2657 for the KEGG pathway prediction, respectively. Open-source models lagged their API-based counterparts, where Falcon-180b-chat and llama1-7b led with the highest performance in gene regulatory relations (F1 of 0.2787 and 0.1923, respectively) and KEGG pathway recognition (Jaccard similarity index of 0.2237 and 0. 2207, respectively). Conclusion: LLMs are valuable in biomedical research, especially in gene network analysis and pathway mapping. However, their effectiveness varies, necessitating careful model selection. This work also provided a case study and insight into using LLMs as knowledge graphs.
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.