ReviewBiology2026
Trustworthy Agentic AI in Bioinformatics: From Workflow Automation to Traceable and Validated Biological Inference.
Review in 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Agentic artificial intelligence is extending bioinformatics beyond conversational assistance by enabling systems to select tools, execute code, revise analytical plans, and interpret biological data. These capabilities may accelerate research, but they also redistribute decisions that determine whether biological conclusions are valid. We conducted a targeted, structured PubMed search in July 2026 and identified 11 peer-reviewed agentic bioinformatics systems for descriptive review based on predefined eligibility criteria for analytical decision-making, tool or code execution, iterative evaluation, or coordinated agent activity. The evidence base covered single-cell transcriptomics, microbial genomics, cancer genomics, and omics applications, together with methodological literature on reproducibility and biological validation. We examined how current systems report delegated authority, provenance, validation, evidence, abstention, and human oversight. Existing platforms implement safeguards such as sandboxed execution, restricted commands, interaction logs, evidence identifiers, automated checks, critic agents, quality scores, and expert assessment. However, published reports rarely provide a connected account linking the original biological question to samples, reference resources, analytical decisions, computational actions, statistical results, supporting evidence, validation outcomes, and final claims. We distinguish inherited bioinformatics errors, errors amplified through autonomous action, and emergent failures arising from memory, retrieval, tool interaction, or agent coordination. We further propose a multidimensional decision-rights profile, consequence-sensitive validation gates, and a claim-to-evidence provenance architecture organized through the Traceable History of Research Evidence, Agent Actions, and Decisions in Bioinformatics (THREAD-Bio) framework. Illustrative cases show that technically successful execution may still support misleading inference. Trustworthy agentic bioinformatics therefore requires claims to remain reconstructible, challengeable, validated, and proportionate to the evidence.
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.