ArticleBioinformatics advances2025
Survey and improvement strategies for gene prioritization with large language models.
Article in Bioinformatics advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking commercial large language models for gene-disease-phenotype extraction from full-text human genetics literature.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Large Language Models for Rare Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence agents for biological research: a survey.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motivation: Rare diseases remain difficult to diagnose due to limited patient data and genetic diversity, with many cases remaining undiagnosed despite advances in variant prioritization tools. While large language models have shown promise in medical applications, their optimal application for trustworthy and accurate gene prioritization downstream of modern prioritization tools has not been systematically evaluated. Results: We benchmarked various language models for gene prioritization using multi-agent and Human Phenotype Ontology classification approaches to categorize patient cases by phenotype-based solvability levels. To address language model limitations in ranking large gene sets, we implemented a divide-and-conquer strategy with mini-batching and token limiting for improved efficiency. GPT-4 outperformed other language models across all patient datasets, demonstrating superior accuracy in ranking causal genes. Multi-agent and Human Phenotype Ontology classification approaches effectively distinguished between confidently-solved and challenging cases. However, we observed bias toward well-studied genes and input order sensitivity as notable language model limitations. Our divide-and-conquer strategy enhanced accuracy, overcoming positional and gene frequency biases in literature. This framework optimized the overall process for identifying disease-causal genes compared to baseline evaluation, better enabling targeted diagnostic and therapeutic interventions and streamlining diagnosis of rare genetic disorders. Availability and implementation: Software and additional material is available at: https://github.com/LiuzLab/GPT-Diagnosis.
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.