ArticleScientific reports2024
Human-augmented large language model-driven selection of glutathione peroxidase 4 as a candidate blood transcriptional biomarker for circulating erythroid cells.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models for bioinformatics.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2026Review
- A Flexible and Responsive Remote Study Design to Assess Gene Expression Changes During Wildfire Smoke Exposure with homeRNA, an At-home Blood Sampling Kit.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Automating candidate gene prioritization with large language models: from naive scoring to literature-grounded validation.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The identification of optimal candidate genes from large-scale blood transcriptomic data is crucial for developing targeted assays to monitor immune responses. Here, we introduce a novel, optimized large language model (LLM)-based approach for prioritizing candidate biomarkers from blood transcriptional modules. Focusing on module M14.51 from the BloodGen3 repertoire, we implemented a multi-step LLM-driven workflow. Initial high-throughput screening used GPT-4, Claude 3, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet to score and rank the module's constituent genes across six criteria. Top candidates then underwent high-resolution scoring using Consensus GPT, with concurrent manual fact-checking and, when needed, iterative refinement of the scores based on user feedback. Qualitative assessment of literature-based narratives and analysis of reference transcriptome data further refined the selection process. This novel multi-tiered approach consistently identified Glutathione Peroxidase 4 (GPX4) as the top candidate gene for module M14.51. GPX4's role in oxidative stress regulation, its potential as a future drug target, and its expression pattern across diverse cell types supported its selection. The incorporation of reference transcriptome data further validated GPX4 as the most suitable candidate for this module. This study presents an advanced LLM-driven workflow with a novel optimized scoring strategy for candidate gene prioritization, incorporating human-in-the-loop augmentation. The approach identified GPX4 as a key gene in the erythroid cell-associated module M14.51, suggesting its potential utility for biomarker discovery and targeted assay development. By combining AI-driven literature analysis with iterative human expert validation, this method leverages the strengths of both artificial and human intelligence, potentially contributing to the development of biologically relevant and clinically informative targeted assays. Further validation studies are needed to confirm the broader applicability of this human-augmented AI approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.