ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Practical Use of Advanced AI Frameworks on Real-Life Scientific Problems: Three Case Studies.
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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly claim to automate scientific research, yet independent evaluations report persistent gaps between those claims and demonstrated capability. We tested frontier agentic AI systems on three practical problems: prediction of treatment non-response in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, optical chemical structure recognition for literature mining, and prediction of drug-design-related properties from small datasets. Each problem was first assigned to autonomous frameworks and then reattempted as human-led, AI-assisted work. Autonomous runs failed in most cases, while human-led work produced reusable resources and modest but defensible performance, including new evidence for possible mechanisms of treatment resistance and a more practical benchmark for mining chemical structures from scientific papers. Property prediction was the single task on which one autonomous AI framework matched the human expert. We conclude that current frameworks can carry out engineering and analysis once a human expert leads the project, but cannot yet engineer a novel solution without oversight. The use of AI on real-life scientific problems remains an art rather than a routine technology.
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.