ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
BioWorkflow: Retrieving comprehensive bioinformatics workflows from publications.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Supporting workflow reproducibility by linking bioinformatics tools across papers and executable code.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reconstructing bioinformatics workflows from the literature is the foundation of scientific analysis. However, the required details-processing steps, software tools, versions, and parameter settings-are dispersed across narrative text, tables, figure captions, and supplemental files. Manual reconstruction typically takes hours per paper and is error-prone, while existing question-answering (QA) and retrieval systems focus on local passages and lack the full-text, multimodal capabilities needed to automatically rebuild complete workflows. We introduce BioWorkflow, a large language model (LLM)-based, retrieval-augmented framework that automates end-to-end workflow extraction from publications by (i) parsing PDFs and building a unified index over text, tables, and figures with chunk-level summaries and embeddings; (ii) hierarchically decomposing queries with dynamic reformulation when new entities or ambiguities emerge; (iii) performing iterative, context-aware retrieval and assembling a directed workflow that captures steps, tools, versions, and parameters; and (iv) linking each predicted element to its cited evidence and running automated consistency checks to suppress hallucinations and ensure traceability. Evaluated on 100 expert-annotated papers, BioWorkflow recovers ~80% of workflow steps (versus ~20% for existing tools), improves reproducibility, completeness, and accuracy by >20% over strong LLM baselines, and reduces curation time to 3-5 minutes per paper, enabling rapid and reliable reuse of published pipelines.
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.