Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42164565›Full record

ArticleCurrent genomics2025

Multiple Confabulations Found in Bioinformatics Tasks Carried Out by Several Free Large Language Models.

Diego A Forero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Diego A ForeroSchool of Health and Sport Sciences, Fundación Universitaria del Área Andina, Bogotá, Colombia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bioinformaticscomputational genomicsgenerative artificial intelligencelarge language models

Identifiers

PMID42164565
PMCPMC13154259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.