ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2024
LmRaC: a functionally extensible tool for LLM interrogation of user experimental results.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- i-gRINN: a next-generation web server for protein energy network analysis of heterogeneous biomolecular systems with natural language-based data exploration.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Comparative feasibility of reasoning and non-reasoning large language models for gynecologic cancer emergency care.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Automatic biomarker discovery and enrichment with BRAD.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationLarge Language Models (LLMs) have provided spectacular results across a wide variety of domains. However, persistent concerns about hallucination and fabrication of authoritative sources raise serious issues for their integral use in scientific research. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a technique for making data and documents, otherwise unavailable during training, available to the LLM for reasoning tasks. In addition to making dynamic and quantitative data available to the LLM, RAG provides the means by which to carefully control and trace source material, thereby ensuring results are accurate, complete, and authoritative.
resultsHere, we introduce LmRaC, an LLM-based tool capable of answering complex scientific questions in the context of a user's own experimental results. LmRaC allows users to dynamically build domain specific knowledge-bases from PubMed sources (RAGdom). Answers are drawn solely from this RAG with citations to the paragraph level, virtually eliminating any chance of hallucination or fabrication. These answers can then be used to construct an experimental context (RAGexp) that, along with user supplied documents (e.g. design, protocols) and quantitative results, can be used to answer questions about the user's specific experiment. Questions about quantitative experimental data are integral to LmRaC and are supported by a user-defined and functionally extensible REST API server (RAGfun). AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Detailed documentation for LmRaC along with a sample REST API server for defining user functions can be found at https://github.com/dbcraig/LmRaC. The LmRaC web application image can be pulled from Docker Hub (https://hub.docker.com) as dbcraig/lmrac.
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.