Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42891499›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics advances2026

Critical assessment in the age of AI: challenges and opportunities for computational biology.

Russell Schwartz, Xuegong Zhang, Jian Ma, Yana Bromberg, Robert F Murphy, Lawrence E Hunter, Laxmi Parida, Julio Saez-Rodriguez, Gustavo Stolovitzky, Mihai Pop and 3 more

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Opinion and perspectives on artificial intelligence biology.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2026
    Article
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

13 authors.

Russell SchwartzRay & Stephanie Lane Computational Biology Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4970-2252
Xuegong ZhangDepartment of Automation/BNRIST and School of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9684-5643
Jian MaRay & Stephanie Lane Computational Biology Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States.
Yana BrombergDepartment of Biology and Department of Computer Science, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, United States.
Robert F MurphyRay & Stephanie Lane Computational Biology Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0358-901X
Lawrence E HunterDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1455-3370
Laxmi ParidaIBM Research, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7872-5074
Julio Saez-RodriguezEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8552-8976
Gustavo StolovitzkyDepartment of Pathology, NYU Grossman School of Engineering, New York, NY 10016, United States.
Mihai PopDepartment of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9617-5304
Shoba RanganathanApplied Biosciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8290-813X
Donna K SlonimDepartment of Computer Science, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3357-437X
Terry GaasterlandBioinformatics & Systems Biology Program, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42891499
PMCPMC13675102

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.