ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Artificial Intelligence agents for biological research: a survey.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Agentic genomics: From pipeline automation to autonomous validation.Cell genomics · 2026Review
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Transcriptomics: From Human-in-the-Loop to Agentic AI.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- AI-based methods for the assessment of DNA damage and repair mechanisms.Frontiers in systems biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rapid growth of biological data and experimental complexity has motivated increasing interest in artificial intelligence (AI) systems that extend beyond static prediction toward autonomous reasoning and action. While recent computational models achieve strong predictive performance, they largely operate as passive tools within human-driven research workflows. In contrast, AI agents integrate reasoning, planning, tool invocation, and feedback-driven refinement, enabling more adaptive and interactive forms of biological analysis. This survey provides a systematic synthesis of recent progress in biological AI agents by reviewing over 100 representative studies across clinical analytics, molecular and drug design, multi-omics analysis, and knowledge discovery. We introduce a unified 5D taxonomy that organizes existing work along task domains, system architectures, interaction modes, evaluation strategies, and resource integration. Building on this framework, we analyze common design patterns, highlight emerging capabilities enabled by agentic paradigms, and identify key open challenges, including reliability, privacy, scalability, and standardized evaluation. Collectively, this survey clarifies the conceptual and methodological landscape of biological AI agents and outlines directions toward more robust, transparent, and collaborative agent-based systems for biological research. To serve as a living resource for the community, we curated a GitHub repository that includes resources and benchmark summaries, available at https://github.com/MineSelf2016/biological_agents_survey.
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.