ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Evaluating AI-assisted customer verification for synthetic nucleic acid screening.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implementing emerging customer screening standards for nucleic acid synthesis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
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
Legitimacy screening, the process of verifying the identity and purpose of customers ordering synthetic nucleic acids, is a primary safeguard against the misuse of synthetic biology. However, the associated costs discourage the adoption of screening practices. To evaluate whether AI tools can facilitate this process, we tested five large language models on five verification tasks using customer profiles of life sciences researchers from around the world. We compared AI performance against an expert human baseline on flag accuracy, source quality, source fidelity, and cost. Flag accuracy of the best-performing model (Gemini 2.5 Pro with four bibliographic and sanctions APIs) was statistically indistinguishable from the human baseline at 90.2% and 89.0%
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.