ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Medea: An omics AI agent for therapeutic discovery.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
AI agents promise to empower biomedical discovery, but realizing this promise requires the ability to complete transparent, long-horizon analyses using tools. Agents must make intermediate decisions explicit, and validate each decision and output against data and tool constraints as the analysis unfolds. We present Medea, an AI agent that takes an omics objective and executes a transparent multi-step analysis using tools. Medea comprises four modules: research planning with context and integrity verification, code execution with pre- and post-run checks, literature reasoning with evidence-strength assessment, and a consensus stage that reconciles evidence across datasets, tools, and literature. Medea uses 20 tools spanning single-cell and bulk transcriptomic datasets, cancer vulnerability maps, pathway knowledge bases, and machine learning models. We evaluate Medea across 5,679 analyses in three open-ended domains: target identification across five diseases and cell type contexts (2,400 analyses), synthetic lethality reasoning in seven cell lines (2,385 analyses), and immunotherapy response prediction in bladder cancer (894 patient analyses). In evaluations that vary large language models, tool sets, omics objectives, and agentic modules, Medea improves the performance of existing approaches by up to 46% for target identification, 22% for synthetic lethality, and 24% for immunotherapy response prediction, while maintaining low failure rates and calibrated abstention. Medea shows that verification-aware AI agents improve performance by producing transparent analyses, not simply more efficient workflows.
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.