ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Out-of-the-box bioinformatics capabilities of large language models (LLMs).
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs), AI agents and co-scientists promise to accelerate scientific discovery across fields ranging from chemistry to biology. Bioinformatics- the analysis of DNA, RNA and protein sequences plays a crucial role in biological research and is especially amenable to AI-driven automation given its computational nature. Here, we assess the bioinformatics capabilities of three popular general-purpose LLMs on a set of tasks covering basic analytical questions that include code writing and multi-step reasoning in the domain. Utilizing questions from Rosalind, a bioinformatics educational platform, we compare the performance of the LLMs vs. humans on 104 questions undertaken by 110 to 68,760 individuals globally. GPT-3.5 provided correct answers for 59/104 (58%) questions, while Llama-3-70B and GPT-4o answered 49/104 (47%) correctly. GPT-3.5 was the best performing in most categories, followed by Llama-3-70B and then GPT-4o. 71% of the questions were correctly answered by at least one LLM. The best performing categories included DNA analysis, while the worst performing were sequence alignment/comparative genomics and genome assembly. Overall, LLMs performance mirrored that of humans with lower performance in tasks in which humans had low performance and vice versa. However, LLMs also failed in some instances where most humans were correct and, in a few cases, LLMs excelled where most humans failed. To the best of our knowledge, this presents the first assessment of general purpose LLMs on basic bioinformatics tasks in distinct areas relative to the performance of hundreds to thousands of humans. LLMs provide correct answers to several questions that require use of biological knowledge, reasoning, statistical analysis and computer code.
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.