ArticleBMC bioinformatics2025
SKiM-GPT: combining biomedical literature-based discovery with large language model hypothesis evaluation.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal Framework of Left Heart-Pulmonary Vascular Remodeling Underlying Right Ventricular Failure in PH-HFpEF.Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Discovery in Life Sciences.Bioconjugate chemistry · 2026Review
- Quantifying Evidence for Competing Biomedical Hypotheses using Large Language Models and Bayesian Analysis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenerating and testing hypotheses is a critical aspect of biomedical science. Typically, researchers generate hypotheses by carefully analyzing available information and making logical connections, which are then tested. The accelerating growth of biomedical literature makes it increasingly difficult to keep pace with connections between biological entities emerging across biomedical research. Recently developed automated means of generating hypotheses can generate many more hypotheses than can be easily tested. One such approach involves literature‑based discovery (LBD) systems such as Serial KinderMiner (SKiM), which surfaces putative A‑B‑C links derived from term co‑occurrence. However, LBD systems leave three critical gaps: (i) they find statistical associations, not biological relationships; (ii) they can produce false‑positive leads; and (iii) they do not assess agreement with a hypothesis in question. As a result, LBD search results often require costly manual curation to be of practical utility to the researcher. Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to automate much of this curation step, but standalone LLMs are hampered by hallucinations, lack of transparency in information sources, and the inability to reference data not included in the training corpus.
resultsWe introduce SKiM-GPT, a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system that combines SKiM’s co-occurrence search and retrieval with frontier LLMs to evaluate user-defined hypotheses. For every chosen A-B-C SKiM hit, SKiM-GPT retrieves appropriate PubMed abstract texts, filters out irrelevant abstracts with a fine-tuned relevance model, and prompts an LLM to evaluate the user’s hypothesis, given the relevant abstracts. Importantly, the SKiM-GPT system is transparent and human-verifiable: it displays the retrieved abstracts, the hypothesis score, and a justification for the score grounded in the texts and written in natural language. On a benchmark consisting of 14 disease-gene-drug hypotheses, SKiM-GPT achieves strong ordinal agreement with four expert biologists (Cohen’s κ = 0.84), demonstrating its ability to replicate expert judgment.
conclusionsSKiM-GPT is open-source ( https://github.com/stewart-lab/skimgpt ) and available through a web interface ( https://skim.morgridge.org ), enabling both wet-lab and computational researchers to systematically and efficiently evaluate biomedical hypotheses at scale.
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.