ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026
Benchmarking AI scientists for omics data-driven biological discovery.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 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.
- Systematic Mining of Bioactive Compounds for Wound Healing FromJMIR bioinformatics and biotechnology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationRecent advances in large language models have enabled the emergence of AI scientists that aim to autonomously analyze biological data and assist scientific discovery. Despite rapid progress, it remains unclear to what extent these systems can extract meaningful biological insights from real experimental data. Existing benchmarks either evaluate reasoning in the absence of data or focus on predefined analytical outputs, failing to reflect realistic, data-driven biological research.
resultsHere, we introduce BAISBench (Biological AI Scientist Benchmark), a benchmark for evaluating AI scientists on real single-cell transcriptomic datasets. BAISBench comprises two tasks: cell type annotation across 15 expert-labeled datasets, and scientific discovery through 193 multiple-choice questions derived from biological conclusions reported in 41 published single-cell studies. We evaluated several representative AI scientists using BAISBench and, to provide a human performance baseline, invited five graduate-level bioinformaticians to collectively complete the same tasks. The results show that while current AI scientists fall short of fully autonomous biological discovery, they already demonstrate substantial potential in supporting data-driven biological research. These results position BAISBench as a practical benchmark for characterizing the current capabilities and limitations of AI scientists in biological research. We expect BAISBench to serve as a practical evaluation framework for guiding the development of more capable AI scientists and for helping biologists identify AI systems that can effectively support real-world research workflows. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://github.com/EperLuo/BAISBench, https://huggingface.co/datasets/EperLuo/BaisBench.
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.