Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39982913›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Leveraging large language models for data analysis automation.

Jacqueline A Jansen, Artür Manukyan, Nour Al Khoury, Altuna Akalin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors.

Jacqueline A JansenMax Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany.
Artür ManukyanMax Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany.
Nour Al KhouryMax Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany.
Altuna AkalinMax Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0468-0117

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data analysis is constrained by a shortage of skilled experts, particularly in biology, where detailed data analysis and subsequent interpretation is vital for understanding complex biological processes and developing new treatments and diagnostics. One possible solution to this shortage in experts would be making use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for generating data analysis pipelines. However, although LLMs have shown great potential when used for code generation tasks, questions regarding the accuracy of LLMs when prompted with domain expert questions such as omics related data analysis questions, remain unanswered. To address this, we developed mergen, an R package that leverages LLMs for data analysis code generation and execution. We evaluated the performance of this data analysis system using various data analysis tasks for genomics. Our primary goal is to enable researchers to conduct data analysis by simply describing their objectives and the desired analyses for specific datasets through clear text. Our approach improves code generation via specialized prompt engineering and error feedback mechanisms. In addition, our system can execute the data analysis workflows prescribed by the LLM providing the results of the data analysis workflow for human review. Our evaluation of this system reveals that while LLMs effectively generate code for some data analysis tasks, challenges remain in executable code generation, especially for complex data analysis tasks. The best performance was seen with the self-correction mechanism, in which self-correct was able to increase the percentage of executable code when compared to the simple strategy by 22.5% for tasks of complexity 2. For tasks for complexity 3, 4 and 5, this increase was 52.5%, 27.5% and 15% respectively. Using a chi-squared test, it was shown that significant differences could be found using the different prompting strategies. Our study contributes to a better understanding of LLM capabilities and limitations, providing software infrastructure and practical insights for their effective integration into data analysis workflows.

Indexed as

AutomationData AnalysisProgramming LanguagesGenomicsHumansLarge Language ModelsSoftware

Identifiers

PMID39982913
PMCPMC11844886

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.