ArticleCurrent genomics2025
Multiple Confabulations Found in Bioinformatics Tasks Carried Out by Several Free Large Language Models.
Article in Current genomics, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bioinformatics is one of the main areas in the health sciences with great potential for the application of Large Language Models (LLMs), as it mainly involves computational analysis of results derived from experimental and high-throughput analysis of human, animal, and cellular models. Testing available general-purpose LLMs for the presence of inaccurate answers, such as confabulations, is of great interest in the fields of bioinformatics and computational genomics. In the current study, we carried out an analysis of the performance of six freely available LLMs (Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Claude, Llama, and DeepSeek) in a number of tasks commonly used in bioinformatics and computational genomics, with varying levels of difficulty. The selected tasks were: converting different identifiers (for two organisms), simulating a bisulfite conversion of DNA sequences, identifying the effects on amino acids of DNA polymorphisms, retrieving orthologues in mouse, identifying GO ontologies and KEGG pathways for lists of genes, interpreting a Volcano plot for gene expression, and automatically generating R code to visualize data. In general, our analysis identified a multiplicity of confabulations for different types of results generated by the tested LLMs. Our results highlighted a high number of errors in the output of the LLMs and identified automatic generation of code as a promising area. Future studies will be needed for a better understanding of the causes of confabulations of LLMs in research-related tasks.
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.