ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Responsible Use of Large Language Models in Microbial Genomics and Bioinformatics: A Life-Science Framework for Reliability, Reproducibility, and Risk-Aware Interpretation.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in life-science research for scientific writing, coding, literature synthesis, workflow troubleshooting, and preliminary data interpretation. In microbial genomics and bioinformatics, their appeal is clear because researchers routinely integrate genome annotations, antimicrobial resistance profiles, virulence determinants, taxonomic assignments, microbiome outputs, workflow scripts, and primary literature. Yet this domain also highlights major risks, including hallucinated biological claims, inaccurate citations, irreproducible code, unsupported genotype-to-phenotype inference, and inappropriate clinical or public health framing. This narrative review examines responsible LLM use in microbial genomics as a representative life-science setting where interpretation depends on database provenance, validated workflows, expert assessment, and reproducible evidence chains. It considers applications in genome annotation, antimicrobial resistance interpretation, virulence analysis, microbiome and metagenomics workflows, coding support, and scientific writing. The review further presents MicrobeGuardGPT as a conceptual reliability framework for assessing LLM-assisted microbial genomics outputs before scientific, clinical, or public health use. By connecting task domains, evidence verification, expert validation, and reliability classification, the framework supports risk-aware LLM integration in bioinformatics. Responsible implementation will require domain-specific benchmarks, curated database linkage, transparent reporting, reproducible workflows, human oversight, and governance standards tailored to biological interpretation across research, diagnostic, surveillance, outbreak-response, educational, and translational contexts.
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.