ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Evaluating open LLMs for agentic analysis orchestration in a typical biomedical lab.
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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Agentic tools - software environments where a large language model plans, calls external tools, executes code, and iterates with minimal human intervention - will run a substantial share of routine biomedical data analysis within the next few years. However, per-call inference cost on frontier models is the bottleneck and can add up quickly. Here, we tested whether a free, locally-runnable open-weight model could take over the repetitive execution steps at frontier accuracy. We used Claude's Opus to author plans of increasing detail for per-sample variant calling, and ran six 2026-release open-weight implementer LLMs against those plans on a set of desktop GPUs. qwen3.6:27b reproduced frontier accuracy on every plan and matched Opus cell-for-cell on a 36-cell error-injection matrix. A sub-$2,000 Jetson or Apple Mac Mini sufficed for the implementer side. The open-weight model landscape evolves on the order of months, so the specific implementer recommended here will be superseded; we provide the plans, harness, scoring code, and per-cell artifacts at https://github.com/nekrut/LLM-eval-paper as a framework for re-evaluating future models.
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.