ArticlePacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing2025
PGxQA: A Resource for Evaluating LLM Performance for Pharmacogenomic QA Tasks.
Article in Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review on the generative AI applications in human medical genetics.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Pooled it
- An agentic AI system for automated pharmacogenomic recommendation generation.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Multi-Omics in Pharmacogenomics: A New Era of Precision Medicine.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- Benchmarking large language models for replication of guideline-based PGx recommendations.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pharmacogenetics represents one of the most promising areas of precision medicine, with several guidelines for genetics-guided treatment ready for clinical use. Despite this, implementation has been slow, with few health systems incorporating the technology into their standard of care. One major barrier to uptake is the lack of education and awareness of pharmacogenetics among clinicians and patients. The introduction of large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 has raised the possibility of medical chatbots that deliver timely information to clinicians, patients, and researchers with a simple interface. Although state-of-the-art LLMs have shown impressive performance at advanced tasks like medical licensing exams, in practice they still often provide false information, which is particularly hazardous in a clinical context. To quantify the extent of this issue, we developed a series of automated and expert-scored tests to evaluate the performance of chatbots in answering pharmacogenetics questions from the perspective of clinicians, patients, and researchers. We applied this benchmark to state-of-the-art LLMs and found that newer models like GPT-4o greatly outperform their predecessors, but still fall short of the standards required for clinical use. Our benchmark will be a valuable public resource for subsequent developments in this space as we work towards better clinical AI for pharmacogenetics.
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.