ArticleCell reports. Medicine2026
Benchmarking large language models for predictive modeling in biomedical research with a focus on reproductive health.
Article in Cell reports. Medicine, 2026. 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.
- The Evolving Role of Large Language Models in Health Care Research and Scientific Communication.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2026Article
- A comparison of differential DNA methylation analysis methods for continuous outcomes: implications for epigenetic studies.Epigenomics · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence agents for biological research: a survey.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for code generation and data analysis. This study assesses LLM performance across four predictive tasks from three DREAM challenges: gestational age regression from transcriptomics and DNA methylation and classification of preterm birth and early preterm birth from microbiome data. We prompt LLMs with task descriptions, data locations, and target outcomes and then run LLM-generated code to fit prediction models and determine accuracy on test sets. Among the eight LLMs tested, o3-mini-high, 4o, DeepseekR1, and Gemini 2.0 can complete at least one task. R code generation is more successful (14/16) than Python (7/16). OpenAI's o3-mini-high outperforms others, completing 7/8 tasks. Test set performance of the top LLM-generated models matches or exceeds the median-participating team for all four tasks and surpasses the top-performing team for one task (p = 0.02). These findings underscore the potential of LLMs to democratize predictive modeling in omics and increase research output.
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.