ArticleBioinformatics advances2026
Critical assessment in the age of AI: challenges and opportunities for computational biology.
Article in Bioinformatics advances, 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.
- Opinion and perspectives on artificial intelligence biology.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motivation: Effective computational tool development depends on our ability to measure progress with rigorous benchmarking, allowing developers to showcase advances and users to select the best of the available options. Computational biology has developed a robust infrastructure of benchmarking standards, tools/resources, and best practices to allow for rigorous and unbiased assessment. This infrastructure, however, faces growing challenges as modern artificial intelligence (AI) methods move to the forefront of computational analysis. The field has imperfectly adapted to issues problematic for benchmarking AI methods, including data entanglement, data leakage, problem-specific performance, limited theoretical guarantees, elusive ground-truth, opaque and often closed models that make reproducibility of results difficult, and dependence on impermanent data sources. Results: In this paper, we consider how the field should tackle benchmarking in the AI era. We revisit why benchmarking matters and its history in computational biology, examine emerging AI-specific challenges, and outline practical paths forward. We argue that benchmarks should be treated as long-lived community infrastructure rather than one-off artifacts bundled with individual papers. We envision a future of critical assessment i.e. dynamic and responsive to evolving use cases, sustaining progress for advancing science in the age of AI. Availability and implementation: N/A.
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.