ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2026
Dual-use artificial intelligence and biology: upstream risk-benefit reviews.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biological AI models (BAIMs) are advancing rapidly and hold substantial promise. Yet, these models raise dual-use concerns, particularly regarding capabilities that could enhance pathogens with pandemic potential. Current risk mitigation discussions for BAIMs are concentrated in the post-development stage, focusing on evaluations and safeguards, after a model has been trained. We argue that upstream, pre-development risk-benefit review (RBR) is a necessary, missing component of effective BAIM governance. The broad range of models, their capabilities, and purpose-built applications, as well as a majority-academic developer community, make this approach feasible and realistic. We propose a review framework with the following five components and discuss key characteristics of each component: (1) review trigger criteria that determine whether a model should undergo an RBR. The review trigger criteria are (A) a model is reasonably anticipated to possess capabilities of concern or (B) it will be trained on sensitive pathogen data classified under the Biosecurity Data Levels (BDL) system; structured risk (2) and benefit (3) reviews using qualitative and quantitative criteria; (4) integration of risk and benefit scores into a composite assessment; and (5) proportionate risk mitigation recommendations. We expect that such reviews (2 through 5) would apply to only a small fraction of BAIMs and would benefit responsible developers by establishing clear expectations at the outset of model development. We discuss how such a framework could be implemented broadly across academic institutions, commercial developers, and federal, philanthropic, and private funding bodies, and address limitations such as the subjectivity of risk assessments. RBR for BAIMs remains nascent and will require expert-driven working groups to define capabilities of concern, establish clear review criteria, and assess risk mitigation efficacy. RBRs are a promising conceptual approach for BAIM risk management and should be pioneered, refined, and vetted through real-world application with model developers.
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.