ArticlePloS one2025
Leveraging large language models for data analysis automation.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automatic extraction of structured information from brain MRI reports using an open-weight large language model.European radiology · 2026Article
- Pitfalls and risks of generative AI in machine learning.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Six decades of animal accelerometry: trends, applications, and future directions.Movement ecology · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence agents for biological research: a survey.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Human-anchored longitudinal comparison of generative AI with a bias-calibrated LLM-as-judge.PloS one · 2026Article
- Multiple Confabulations Found in Bioinformatics Tasks Carried Out by Several Free Large Language Models.Current genomics · 2025Article
- Bioinformatics and biomedical informatics with ChatGPT: Year one review.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2024Article
- Steering veridical large language model analyses by correcting and enriching generated database queries: first steps toward ChatGPT bioinformatics.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.