ReviewThe Lancet. Digital health2026
CARDBiomedBench: a benchmark for evaluating the performance of large language models in biomedical research.
Review in The Lancet. Digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for genomic science: a scoping review of concepts, architectures, applications, and open challenges.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence for Alzheimer's Disease Diagnosis: From Traditional Machine Learning to Large Language Models.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although large language models (LLMs) have the potential to transform biomedical research, their ability to reason accurately across complex, data-rich domains remains unproven. To address this research gap, we introduce CARDBiomedBench, a large-scale question-and-answer benchmark for evaluating LLMs in biomedical science. This pilot release focuses on neurodegenerative disease research, a field requiring the integration of genomics, pharmacology, and statistical reasoning. CARDBiomedBench includes more than 68 000 curated question-answer pairs generated through expert annotation and structured data augmentation. The questions spanned ten biological categories and nine reasoning types, based on publicly available resources, such as genome-wide association studies, summary data-based mendelian randomisation results, and regulatory drug databases. We assessed model responses using BioScore, a rubric-based evaluation system that measures response accuracy (response quality rate, RQR) and the ability to abstain from incorrect answers (safety rate). Testing 18 state-of-the-art LLMs revealed considerable gaps. Claude-3.5-Sonnet achieved high caution but low accuracy (safety rate 75%, RQR 24%), whereas GPT-4.1 showed the opposite trade-off (safety rate 7%, RQR 51%). No model showed a successful balance of both metrics. CARDBiomedBench provides a new standard for benchmarking biomedical LLMs, revealing key limitations in existing models and offering a scalable path towards safer, more effective artificial intelligence systems in scientific research.
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.