ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Large language model agents for biological intelligence across genomics, proteomics, spatial biology, and biomedicine.
Review 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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- An atlas of transcription factor cooperation reveals how motif readers shape regulatory output.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Alzheimer's Disease Diagnosis: From Traditional Machine Learning to Large Language Models.Biosensors · 2026Review
- CFM-GP: unified conditional flow matching to learn gene perturbation across cell types.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Phage bioinformatics tools: a review of computational approaches for bacteriophage research.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Agentic genomics: From pipeline automation to autonomous validation.Cell genomics · 2026Review
- SpikeLab: Agentic tools for spike data analysis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- From capability uplift to capability governance: an AI-biosecurity stack.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are evolving from passive predictors into agentic systems capable of planning, tool-use, and multimodal reasoning. This shift is especially consequential for biology, where complex, noisy, and multi-scale data require adaptive and integrative computational strategies. In this review, we provide the first systematic synthesis of LLM-based agents across genomics, molecular biology, imaging, biomedical analysis, and automated bioinformatics workflows. We analyze >60 emerging systems and organize them within a unifying framework that characterizes agentic traits, such as autonomous decision-making, external tool invocation, memory, and self-correction. Across domains, agentic LLMs show early promise in enabling multi-step analysis, linking heterogeneous evidence, and supporting exploratory scientific tasks. At the same time, our comparative assessment highlights consistent challenges, including unstable reasoning, limited biological grounding, retrieval misalignment, and barriers to reproducibility and biosafety. We conclude by outlining opportunities for trustworthy and collaborative biological agents, including multimodal integration, closed-loop experimental design, and robust evaluation practices. This survey aims to clarify the emerging landscape and chart a path toward reliable agentic systems for biological discovery.
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.