ReviewFrontiers in plant science2025
From text to traits: exploring the role of large language models in plant breeding.
Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bibliometric-Based Analysis of Global Trends and Collaborative Networks in Plant Genetic Engineering (1994-2024).Plant biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- Bridging the Divide: Integrating Cottonseed Oil Content with Agronomic Trait Improvement in Upland Cotton (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Haplotype applications in genomic selection.Genome biology · 2026Review
- Advancing anthracnose resistance in dry beans through the transition from traditional to computational breeding efforts.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- The unacknowledged co-author: LLM-mediated reasoning in plant metabolomics and its systematic blind spots.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Towards smart agriculture: AI-driven prediction of key genes for revolutionizing crop breeding.Planta · 2025Review
- Merging traditional practices and modern technology through computational plant breeding.Plant physiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern plant breeders regularly deal with the intricate patterns within biological data in order to better understand the biological background behind a trait of interest and speed up the breeding process. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained widespread adoption in everyday contexts, showcasing remarkable capabilities in understanding and generating human-like text. By harnessing the capabilities of LLMs, foundational models can be repurposed to uncover intricate patterns within biological data, leading to the development of robust and flexible predictive tools that provide valuable insights into complex plant breeding systems. Despite the significant progress made in utilizing LLMs in various scientific domains, their adoption within plant breeding remains unexplored, presenting a significant opportunity for innovation. This review paper explores how LLMs, initially designed for natural language tasks, can be adapted to address specific challenges in plant breeding, such as identifying novel genetic interactions, predicting performance of a trait of interest, and well-integrating diverse datasets such as multi-omics, phenotypic, and environmental sources. Compared to conventional breeding methods, LLMs offer the potential to enhance the discovery of genetic relationships, improve trait prediction accuracy, and facilitate informed decision-making. This review aims to bridge this gap by highlighting current advancements, challenges, and future directions for integrating LLMs into plant breeding, ultimately contributing to sustainable agriculture and improved global food security.
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.