_version_ 1866916725809741824
author Lichtenstein, Flavio
de Souza, Daniel Alexandre
Trufen, Carlos Eduardo Madureira
Gonçalves, Victor Wendel da Silva
Bernardes, Juliana de Paula
Baroni, Vinicius Miranda
DeOcesano-Pereira, Carlos
Ormundo, Leonardo Fontoura
de Souza, Fabio Augusto Labre
Ibañez, Olga Celia Martinez
Starobinas, Nancy
Lopes, Luciano Rodrigo
Fontes, Aparecida Maria
de Andrade, Sonia Aparecida
Chudzinski-Tavassi, Ana Marisa
author_facet Lichtenstein, Flavio
de Souza, Daniel Alexandre
Trufen, Carlos Eduardo Madureira
Gonçalves, Victor Wendel da Silva
Bernardes, Juliana de Paula
Baroni, Vinicius Miranda
DeOcesano-Pereira, Carlos
Ormundo, Leonardo Fontoura
de Souza, Fabio Augusto Labre
Ibañez, Olga Celia Martinez
Starobinas, Nancy
Lopes, Luciano Rodrigo
Fontes, Aparecida Maria
de Andrade, Sonia Aparecida
Chudzinski-Tavassi, Ana Marisa
contents A scientific study begins with a central question, and search engines like PubMed are the first tools for retrieving knowledge and understanding the current state of the art. Large Language Models (LLMs) have been used in research, promising acceleration and deeper results. However, besides caution, they demand rigorous validation. Assessing complex biological relationships remains challenging for SQL-based tools and LLM models. Here, we introduce the Digital Pathway Curation (DPC) pipeline to evaluate the reproducibility and accuracy of the Gemini models against PubMed search and human expert curation. Using two omics experiments, we created a large dataset (Ensemble) based on determining pathway-disease associations. With the Ensemble dataset, we demonstrate that Gemini achieves high run-to-run reproducibility of approximately 99% and inter-model reproducibility of around 75%. Next, we calculate the crowdsourced consensus using a smaller dataset. The CSC allows us to calculate accuracies, and the Gemini multi-model consensus reached a significant accuracy of about 87%. Our findings demonstrate that LLMs are reproducible, reliable, and valuable tools for navigating complex biomedical knowledge.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2505_01259
institution arXiv
publishDate 2025
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle Digital Pathway Curation (DPC): a pipeline able to assess the reproducibility, consensus and accuracy in biomedical search retrieval by comparing Gemini, PubMed, and Scientific Reviewers
Lichtenstein, Flavio
de Souza, Daniel Alexandre
Trufen, Carlos Eduardo Madureira
Gonçalves, Victor Wendel da Silva
Bernardes, Juliana de Paula
Baroni, Vinicius Miranda
DeOcesano-Pereira, Carlos
Ormundo, Leonardo Fontoura
de Souza, Fabio Augusto Labre
Ibañez, Olga Celia Martinez
Starobinas, Nancy
Lopes, Luciano Rodrigo
Fontes, Aparecida Maria
de Andrade, Sonia Aparecida
Chudzinski-Tavassi, Ana Marisa
Quantitative Methods
I.2.0
A scientific study begins with a central question, and search engines like PubMed are the first tools for retrieving knowledge and understanding the current state of the art. Large Language Models (LLMs) have been used in research, promising acceleration and deeper results. However, besides caution, they demand rigorous validation. Assessing complex biological relationships remains challenging for SQL-based tools and LLM models. Here, we introduce the Digital Pathway Curation (DPC) pipeline to evaluate the reproducibility and accuracy of the Gemini models against PubMed search and human expert curation. Using two omics experiments, we created a large dataset (Ensemble) based on determining pathway-disease associations. With the Ensemble dataset, we demonstrate that Gemini achieves high run-to-run reproducibility of approximately 99% and inter-model reproducibility of around 75%. Next, we calculate the crowdsourced consensus using a smaller dataset. The CSC allows us to calculate accuracies, and the Gemini multi-model consensus reached a significant accuracy of about 87%. Our findings demonstrate that LLMs are reproducible, reliable, and valuable tools for navigating complex biomedical knowledge.
title Digital Pathway Curation (DPC): a pipeline able to assess the reproducibility, consensus and accuracy in biomedical search retrieval by comparing Gemini, PubMed, and Scientific Reviewers
topic Quantitative Methods
I.2.0
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.01259