ArticleGenome biology2026
Comparative assessment of large language models for microbial phenotype assignment.
Article in Genome 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to extract knowledge from text, yet their coverage and reliability in biology remain unclear. Microbial phenotypes are especially important to assess, as comprehensive data remain sparse except for well-studied organisms and they underpin our understanding of microbial characteristics, functional roles, and applications.
resultsHere, we systematically assessed the biological knowledge encoded in publicly available LLMs for structured phenotype assignment of microbial species. We evaluated the performance of up to 57 LLMs across different experiments, including state-of-the-art models such as Claude Sonnet 4 and the GPT-5 family of models. Across phenotypes, LLMs reached accurate assignments for many species, but performance varied widely by model and trait, and no single model dominated. Model self-reported confidence is informative, with higher confidence aligning with higher accuracy, and can be used to prioritize phenotype assignment, effectively distinguishing between high- and low-confidence inferences.
conclusionsOverall, our study outlines the utility and limitations of text-based LLMs for phenotype characterization in microbiology.
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.