Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Ciorba, D.

Publications and source records attributed to Ciorba, D..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

BioLLMBench: A Comprehensive Benchmarking of Large Language Models in Bioinformatics

The rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, particularly in Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4, Gemini, and LLaMA, have opened new avenues for computational biology and bioinformatics. We report the development of BioLLMBench, a novel framework designed to evaluate LLMs in bioinformatics tasks. This study assessed GPT-4, Gemini, and LLaMA through 2,160 experimental runs, focusing on 24 distinct tasks across six key areas: domain expertise, mathematical problem-solving, coding proficiency, data visualization, research paper summarization, and machine learning model development. Tasks ranged from fundamental to expert-level challenges, and each area was evaluated using seven specific metrics. A Contextual Response Variability Analysis was implemented to understand how model responses varied under different conditions. Results showed diverse performance: GPT-4 led in most tasks, achieving a 91.3% proficiency in domain knowledge, while Gemini excelled in mathematical problem-solving with a 97.5% proficiency score. GPT-4 also outperformed in machine learning model development, though Gemini and LLaMA struggled to generate executable code. All models faced challenges in research paper summarization, scoring below 40% using the ROUGE metric. Model performance variance increased when using a new chat window, though average scores remained similar. The study also discusses the limitations and potential misuse risks of these models in bioinformatics.

bioinformatics↗

Analytical code sharing practices in biomedical research

Data-driven computational analysis is becoming increasingly important in biomedical research, as the amount of data being generated continues to grow. However, the lack of practices of sharing research outputs, such as data, source code and methods, affects transparency and reproducibility of studies, which are critical to the advancement of science. Many published studies are not reproducible due to insufficient documentation, code, and data being shared. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of 453 manuscripts published between 2016-2021 and found that 50.1% of them fail to share the analytical code. Even among those that did disclose their code, a vast majority failed to offer additional research outputs, such as data. Furthermore, only one in ten papers organized their code in a structured and reproducible manner. We discovered a significant association between the presence of code availability statements and increased code availability (p=2.71x10-9). Additionally, a greater proportion of studies conducting secondary analyses were inclined to share their code compared to those conducting primary analyses (p=1.15*10-07). In light of our findings, we propose raising awareness of code sharing practices and taking immediate steps to enhance code availability to improve reproducibility in biomedical research. By increasing transparency and reproducibility, we can promote scientific rigor, encourage collaboration, and accelerate scientific discoveries. We must prioritize open science practices, including sharing code, data, and other research products, to ensure that biomedical research can be replicated and built upon by others in the scientific community.

scientific communication and education↗