ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2025
Automating candidate gene prioritization with large language models: from naive scoring to literature-grounded validation.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2025. 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.
- Benchmarking large language models for cell-free RNA diagnostic biomarker discovery.Nature communications · 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
Abstract
motivationIdentifying promising therapeutic targets from thousands of genes in transcriptomic studies remains a major bottleneck in biomedical research. While large language models (LLMs) show potential for gene prioritization, they suffer from hallucination and lack systematic validation against expert knowledge.
resultsThe framework identified 609 sepsis-relevant genes with >94% filtering efficiency, demonstrating strong enrichment for inflammatory pathways including TNF-α signaling, complement activation, and interferon responses. Literature validation yielded 30 ultra-high confidence therapeutic candidates, including both established sepsis genes (IL10, TREM1, S100A9, NLRP3) and novel targets warranting investigation. Benchmark validation against expert-curated databases achieved 71.2% recall, with systematic correlation between computational confidence and evidence quality. The final candidate set balanced discovery (11 novel genes) with validation (19 known genes), maintaining biological coherence throughout the filtering process. This framework demonstrates that rigorous methodology can transform unreliable LLM outputs into systematically validated biological insights. By combining computational efficiency with literature grounding, the approach provides a practical tool for prioritizing experimental validation efforts. The modular design enables adaptation to other diseases through knowledge base substitution, offering a systematic approach to literature-guided biomarker discovery. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: We developed a two-stage computational framework that combines LLM-based screening with literature validation for systematic gene prioritization. Starting with 10 824 genes from the BloodGen3 repertoire, we applied multi-criteria evaluation for sepsis relevance, followed by retrieval-augmented generation using 6346 curated sepsis publications. A novel faithfulness evaluation system verified that LLM predictions aligned with retrieved literature evidence. Source code and implementation details are available at https://github.com/taushifkhan/llm-geneprioritization-framework, vector database at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15802241, and Interactive demonstration at https://llm-geneprioritization.streamlit.app/.
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.