ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026
Benchmarking large language models for identifying transcription factor regulatory interactions.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationTranscription factors (TFs) and their target genes form regulatory networks that control gene expression and influence diverse biological processes and disease outcomes. Although multiple computational methods and curated databases have been developed to identify TF-target interactions, they often require specialized expertise. Large language models (LLMs) chatbots offer a more accessible alternative for querying TF-target interactions. In this study, we benchmarked four prominent LLMs, Anthropic's Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Google's Gemini 1.0 Pro, OpenAI's GPT-4o, and Meta's Llama3 8b, using 8432 literature-curated human TF-target interactions. We examined four regulatory categories: bidirectional, ambiguous, self-regulated, and unidirectional interactions.
resultsUnder single-turn queries, Claude 3.5 Sonnet and GPT-4o outperformed the others, with balanced accuracies reaching 50.0 ± 7.6% (GPT-4o, self-regulated) and 48.2 ± 1.0% (Claude 3.5 Sonnet, unidirectional). Zero-temperature settings generally enhanced reproducibility, and multi-turn prompting improved performance for most models, increasing Claude 3.5 Sonnet's accuracy on self-regulated pairs by 32.6%. Excluding TF-target pairs with all unknown regulation types also generally improved accuracy, with unidirectional regulation reaching near 70% balanced accuracy in some cases. We also benchmarked Anthropic's Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Google's Gemini 2.0 Flash, OpenAI's GPT-4o, and Meta's Llama3 using 5148 experimentally derived TF-target interactions. Claude 3.5 Sonnet consistently outperformed the other models across conditions. Our findings highlight that prompt engineering and strategic use of model parameters consistently influence LLM chatbots' performance on TF-target identifications. This study establishes a benchmarking framework and demonstrates the potential of pre-trained general-purpose LLMs to support regulatory biology research, especially for researchers without extensive computational expertise. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The literature-based TF-target interactions ground truth were obtained from TRRUST v2 human dataset (www.grnpedia.org/trrust). The experimental derived TF-target interactions ground truth were obtained from TFLink Home Sapiens small-scale interaction table (https://tflink.net/). Processed TF-target interactions data and the analytical pipeline has been compiled as an interactive Python notebook file and is available at https://github.com/pengpclab/LLM-TF-interactions.
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.