Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38940140›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2024

BioCoder: a benchmark for bioinformatics code generation with large language models.

Xiangru Tang, Bill Qian, Rick Gao, Jiakang Chen, Xinyun Chen, Mark B Gerstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Benchmarking large language models for genomic knowledge with GeneTuring.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Xiangru TangDepartment of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, United States.
Bill QianDepartment of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, United States.
Rick GaoDepartment of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, United States.
Jiakang ChenDepartment of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, United States.
Xinyun ChenGoogle Deepmind, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States.
Mark B GersteinDepartment of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9746-3719

Funding

Schmidt Futures
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

summaryPretrained large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved code generation. As these models scale up, there is an increasing need for the output to handle more intricate tasks and to be appropriately specialized to particular domains. Here, we target bioinformatics due to the amount of domain knowledge, algorithms, and data operations this discipline requires. We present BioCoder, a benchmark developed to evaluate LLMs in generating bioinformatics-specific code. BioCoder spans much of the field, covering cross-file dependencies, class declarations, and global variables. It incorporates 1026 Python functions and 1243 Java methods extracted from GitHub, along with 253 examples from the Rosalind Project, all pertaining to bioinformatics. Using topic modeling, we show that the overall coverage of the included code is representative of the full spectrum of bioinformatics calculations. BioCoder incorporates a fuzz-testing framework for evaluation. We have applied it to evaluate various models including InCoder, CodeGen, CodeGen2, SantaCoder, StarCoder, StarCoder+, InstructCodeT5+, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4. Furthermore, we fine-tuned one model (StarCoder), demonstrating that our training dataset can enhance the performance on our testing benchmark (by >15% in terms of Pass@K under certain prompt configurations and always >3%). The results highlight two key aspects of successful models: (i) Successful models accommodate a long prompt (>2600 tokens) with full context, including functional dependencies. (ii) They contain domain-specific knowledge of bioinformatics, beyond just general coding capability. This is evident from the performance gain of GPT-3.5/4 compared to the smaller models on our benchmark (50% versus up to 25%). AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All datasets, benchmark, Docker images, and scripts required for testing are available at: https://github.com/gersteinlab/biocoder and https://biocoder-benchmark.github.io/.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsComputational BiologyProgramming LanguagesSoftware

Identifiers

PMID38940140
PMCPMC11211839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.