Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42748119›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2026

A practical risk framework for large language model use in life science research.

Thomas Sharpton, Edward W Davis Ii, Alexandra Alexiev

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Thomas SharptonLinus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5996-7764
Edward W Davis IiCenter for Quantitative Life Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OregonUnited States of America.
Alexandra AlexievLinus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, United States of America.

Funding

National Science Foundation 2025457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Responsible use of large language models (LLMs) in life science research demands a unified approach to risk, yet existing guidance treats prompting and verification as separate topics rather than as integrated components of a single risk management framework. This paper addresses that gap for life science researchers. We explain how LLM architecture produces both remarkable capabilities and characteristic failures including hallucination and sycophancy, with particular attention to vulnerabilities most relevant to life science workflows. We argue that effective prompt design is itself a primary risk management strategy, reducing the probability and severity of characteristic failures before verification is required, and introduce a structured framework for matching downstream verification effort to risk across dimensions of output verifiability, researcher expertise, and consequence of error. We apply both layers to common research tasks, including literature synthesis, code generation, writing assistance, statistical reasoning, and administrative work, with documentation practices and ethical obligations addressed throughout. Six supplementary guides extend each component into detailed workflows, worked examples, and reference checklists, and a companion open-source repository (https://github.com/SharptonLab/PromptLab) provides tested prompts and verification tools for immediate use. Together, these resources are designed to help researchers use these tools carefully and document how they did so.

Indexed as

Biological Science DisciplinesLarge Language ModelsComputational BiologyHumansRisk ManagementWorkflow

Identifiers

PMID42748119
PMCPMC13581008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.