LLMBDC: Language Model for Biological Domains Oriented Clustering of Gene Ontology

Jiaying Lu; Jie Xu; Peng Jin; Ximing Ran; Zhaohui Qin; Zhexing Wen

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

LLMBDC: Language Model for Biological Domains Oriented Clustering of Gene Ontology

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A training-free LLM ranking prompt assigns Gene Ontology terms to user-defined biological domains, reaching 83.9% precision and ARI 0.73 against expert labels.

desk verdict Useful zero-shot GO-to-domain assignment with strong reported numbers, but the benchmarks are the weak link — the AD labels may be memorized and the FXS labels are unreleased, so the margins should be read with caution. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00099 v1 pith:KQNLCYWP submitted 2026-07-30 q-bio.GN cs.AI

Ximing Ran , Jie Xu , Peng Jin , Zhaohui Qin , Zhexing Wen , Jiaying Lu This is my paper

classification q-bio.GNcs.AI

keywords GeneOntologyclusteringbiologicaldomainszero-shotLLMrankingGOenrichmentsummarizationAlzheimer'sdiseaseFragileXsyndromeCauchycombinationtestBdc

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

LlmBdc is a training-free framework that turns Gene Ontology (GO) term clustering into a zero-shot ranking task: a large language model is prompted to rank a user-supplied list of biological domains for each GO term, and the top-ranked domain becomes the cluster label. The paper's central claim is that this simple procedure reproduces expert manual curation. On 7,120 Alzheimer's-related GO terms it reports 83.9% precision at rank 1 and a 73.3% adjusted Rand index against expert labels, versus 9.7% for REVIGO, with analogous gains on 516 Fragile X syndrome terms. The authors argue this makes scalable, context-aware, and reproducible summarization of GO enrichment results possible without training or manual annotation. The best configuration uses only the term name and definition, a low decoding temperature, and no 'unknown' label.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the zero-shot ranking prompt: a template that presents the GO term name and definition as the query, lists the candidate BioDomains, and asks the LLM to return a top-5 ranked list, which is parsed into cluster labels. This replaces fixed similarity metrics, gene-overlap measures, and static GO hierarchy mappings with the LLM's pretrained semantic knowledge. The Cauchy combination test then aggregates per-term enrichment p-values into a single domain-level p-value, allowing statistical significance to be reported per cluster rather than per term.

What would settle it

Generate fresh expert BioDomain labels for a set of GO terms after the LLM's training cutoff (or from an unpublished curation process), run LlmBdc with the recommended configuration, and compare Precision@1 and ARI. If performance drops toward the SapBERT baseline or ARI falls below roughly 0.5, the headline gains are largely an artifact of training-data overlap rather than zero-shot reasoning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

LlmBdc casts GO-to-BioDomain annotation as a semantic ranking problem and solves it with a frozen LLM. For each GO term, the model outputs the five most appropriate domains from the user's list; the top pick is the assignment. Against expert-annotated ground truth, the paper reports Precision@1 of 83.9% (AD) and 78.4% (FXS), and adjusted Rand index of 0.73 and 0.67, clearly above all baselines including SapBERT and REVIGO. Domain-level p-values computed with the Cauchy combination test confirm that the LLM-produced clusters retain statistically significant enrichment signals. Ablation studies show that adding GO structure, gene-set similarity information, or disease descriptions to the promp

Load-bearing premise

The results stand on the assumption that the two expert label sets are reliable ground truth: the FXS labels are unreleased and were made by the authors, and the AD labels come from a 2024 publication that the evaluated LLM may have seen during pretraining; if either label set is unrepresentative or memorized, the reported margins overstate real-world performance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

GO enrichment output can be condensed into user-defined biological domains without training data or manual curation, at a scale that manual annotation cannot match.
Domain-level enrichment p-values computed from LLM clusters remain statistically significant, so interpretation can proceed at the domain level.
The method transfers across diseases with different domain lists, indicating it is not tied to a particular ontology or annotation scheme.
Because only term name and definition are needed, the framework keeps working as GO terms are added, refined, or removed.
Backend model choice is a real trade-off: reasoning-oriented LLMs give the best accuracy but higher cost and latency.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A fair test of whether the model is truly reasoning about biology would use expert labels created after the LLM's training cutoff; the current AD labels come from a 2024 publication the model may have memorized.
The same ranking approach could be applied to other controlled vocabularies, such as disease ontologies or pathway databases, wherever a user can define target categories.
One could auto-generate the BioDomain list from a study's abstract or gene-set context, making the pipeline fully automatic from gene list to domain summary.
For rare or newly coined GO terms, consulting a knowledge graph or pathway database before prompting could patch the identified weakness of limited LLM knowledge.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper gives a clean, practical method: use an LLM to rank user-defined BioDomains for each GO term, zero-shot, no training. That task framing is genuinely new, and the reported Precision@1 / Recall@1 numbers on AD and FXS are much higher than the SapBERT baseline. The ablations are honest — they found that adding GO structure, gene sets, or disease descriptions actually hurts, so the recommended prompt is just term name + definition. Code is promised at an anonymous link. This is a useful tool for functional genomics summarization, likely worth adopting once validated.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader put it: the benchmark labels. The AD ground truth comes from Cary et al. 2024, which almost certainly appears in DeepSeek-reasoner's training corpus. The paper does not check for contamination, and the P@1 of 83.9% on AD could be partly retrieval. The FXS dataset is the cleaner test because it is novel and unreleased, but it was created by the authors themselves, with no inter-annotator agreement or annotation protocol reported, and the labels are not released. So the FXS numbers (P@1 78.4%, ARI 66.6%) are the real evidence, and they are still impressive — but we cannot verify them independently.

Two smaller issues. First, the REVIGO comparison is not fair: REVIGO clusters by semantic similarity, it does not assign to user-defined BioDomains. Comparing ARI between REVIGO's clusters and LlmBdc's domain assignments conflates clustering with assignment and overstates the gap. Second, the recommended configuration (DeepSeek, temperature 0.0-0.1, no Unknown label) was selected on the same two datasets used for the headline results, so there is a selection-on-test component. Also, the abstract mentions 'confidence scoring' and 'context-aware,' but the method does not output confidence scores and the best prompt is not context-rich. Those are wording issues, not math issues.

The central idea is sound, and the math is not circular — it is LLM-based ranking plus standard evaluation metrics. The paper deserves a serious referee, but it needs a contamination check, a released or independently annotated FXS label set, and a more carefully scoped comparison against REVIGO. If those are addressed, the claims could hold; as is, the headline margins are probably optimistic but the method likely works. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LlmBdc, a training-free zero-shot framework that assigns GO terms to user-defined biological domains (BioDomains) by prompting an LLM to return a ranked list of candidate domains. The framework is evaluated on two expert-annotated benchmarks: Alzheimer's disease (7,120 GO terms, 19 domains, from Cary et al. 2024) and Fragile X syndrome (516 GO terms, 21 author-annotated domains). Against six baselines, LlmBdc with DeepSeek-reasoner reports Precision@1 of 83.9% (AD) and 78.4% (FXS) and Recall@2 of 93.6% and 93.1%, respectively. Against REVIGO, the paper reports ARI improvements from 9.7% to 73.3% (AD) and from 15.7% to 66.6% (FXS), with full coverage. Ablations examine temperature, the 'Unknown' label, and prompt content. The central claim is that an LLM can reproduce expert-level GO-to-BioDomain categorization without fine-tuning, using only term names and definitions.

Significance. If the results hold, the framework is practically valuable: it offers a context-aware, customizable, and reproducible alternative to static GO summarization tools, with no training required and code publicly available. The paper's strengths are its clear ranking formulation, evaluation across multiple LLMs, ablation of prompt factors, and use of a Cauchy combination test for domain-level significance. The main weakness is that the evaluation's validity rests on two ground-truth label sets whose reliability and non-contamination are not established. The AD labels are from a 2024 publication likely present in the training data of the deployed LLMs, and the FXS labels are unreleased author-generated annotations without an annotation protocol. The REVIGO comparison is partly mechanical because REVIGO drops a large fraction of terms. These issues are fixable with additional experiments and data release, so the central idea remains defensible pending those checks.

major comments (3)

[§4.1, Tables 2 and 5] The AD ground truth comes from Cary et al. (2024), a publication released before DeepSeek-reasoner and ChatGPT-4o-mini were deployed. No contamination check is reported. Since the prompt supplies the ground-truth BioDomain names as candidates, the reported P@1=83.9% and ARI=73.3% could reflect memorized retrieval rather than zero-shot reasoning. I do not claim this is an internal inconsistency, but it is a correctness risk on the central claim. Please add a contamination audit: e.g., evaluate on GO terms added after the model cutoff, run a label-renaming experiment where BioDomain names are paraphrased, and disclose model snapshot/cutoff information.
[§4.1, FXS dataset] The FXS benchmark is the only non-published ground truth, but it was generated by the authors and is not released. No annotation protocol, number of annotators, or inter-annotator agreement is reported. Consequently, the FXS results (P@1=78.4%, ARI=66.6%) are unverifiable and cannot be compared in reliability to an independent expert benchmark. Please publish the label file, describe the annotation manual and agreement statistics, or replace the set with independent third-party annotations. This is load-bearing for the generalizability claim across heterogeneous disease contexts.
[§4.3, Fig. 3] The REVIGO comparison is not apples-to-apples. REVIGO covers only 64% of AD terms and 37% of FXS terms, while LlmBdc assigns all terms. The reported ARI and NMI are therefore computed over different term sets, and the coverage difference is entangled with clustering quality. It is also not stated how REVIGO's unlabeled clusters are aligned to the BioDomain ground truth before computing ARI/NMI. Please recompute all metrics on the common subset of covered terms, or report the coverage gap as a separate axis, before claiming headline ARI improvements over REVIGO.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and title] The name is spelled inconsistently: 'LLMBDC' appears in the abstract while 'LlmBdc' is used throughout the body and Figure 1. Please standardize.
[Section 1 and reference [3]] The text cites 'Gregory et al. [3]' for the AD dataset, but reference [3] is Gregory A. Cary et al. The citation should read 'Cary et al.'.
[Table 3] The claimed 'closely match' between expert and LlmBdc domain ranks is overstated: Autophagy has truth rank 19 and LlmBdc rank 6, with a truth p-value of 1.00. Even one such large mismatch deserves explicit discussion in the text.
[Section 3.2.1] The phrase 'adaptive prompt generation' is not strictly accurate, since the prompt template appears fixed per experiment; 'template-based prompt construction' would better describe Eq. (2).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LlmBdc's outputs are not derived from the target labels by construction; the evaluation concerns are validity risks, not formal circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain in Sections 3.2–3.2.4 defines LlmBdc as a ranker: Eq. (1)–(4) map a GO term and a user-supplied BioDomain list to a ranked list using a frozen LLM. The expert-annotated labels are used only as evaluation ground truth, not as prompt inputs or as terms in the scoring equations. The CCT aggregation (Eq. 5–6) combines external enrichment p-values and does not inject the ground-truth labels. No equation-level reduction of the prediction to the target was found. The self-citations [14,29] support the generic idea that LLMs can be adapted by prompting, but the central performance claim rests on the empirical comparison in Section 4, not on those citations; there is no imported uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The main threats—possible pretraining contamination of the AD labels (Cary et al. 2024), the unreleased/author-generated FXS labels, hyperparameter selection on the same test sets, and the asymmetric REVIGO comparison—are benchmark-validity and reproducibility concerns, not circularity under the defined patterns. They should be weighed as correctness risk, but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method adds no new physical or mathematical entities. The free parameters are prompt/decoding choices tuned on the same two evaluation sets used for the headline results. The main uncharged assumptions are that the expert labels are correct and not memorized, and that two diseases suffice to demonstrate generalizability.

free parameters (5)

Top_k = 5
Number of ranked domain labels requested from the LLM; set as a hyperparameter in §3.2.1 and adjustable.
Decoding temperature = 0.0–0.1
Selected from the ablation in §4.4; low temperature gives the best precision/recall.
Unknown label = disabled
Ablation in §4.4 shows disabling the 'Unknown' option improves recall by forcing full domain assignments.
Prompt input content = GO name + definition only
Chosen from four prompt formats in §4.4; adding disease descriptions, GO structure, or gene-set metadata did not help and sometimes hurt.
LLM backend = DeepSeek-reasoner
Selected by comparing Qwen3-0.6B, Qwen3-8B, ChatGPT-4o-mini, and DeepSeek-reasoner on the same benchmarks (§4.4, Table 5).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The expert-annotated BioDomain labels for AD and FXS are accurate and suitable as ground truth.
The evaluation treats the Cary et al. labels and the authors' own FXS annotations as correct; no inter-annotator agreement or external validation is reported (§4.1).
domain assumption The LLM's domain choices reflect semantic reasoning rather than memorization of the benchmark labels.
The paper does not test for training-data contamination from reference [3] or from any prior exposure; §4.2 calls the setting zero-shot without a leakage check.
domain assumption Performance on AD and FXS generalizes to other diseases and domain lists.
Only two disease contexts are evaluated; §5 lists broader benchmarking across immunology, developmental biology, and cancer as future work.
standard math The p-values entering the Cauchy combination test are valid enrichment p-values for the input GO terms.
CCT is used to combine dependent p-values (§3.2.4); this assumes the input p-values satisfy the conditions required by Liu and Xie [13].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLMBDC: Language Model for Biological Domains Oriented Clustering of Gene Ontology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KQNLCYWP

@misc{pith2026260800099,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLMBDC: Language Model for Biological Domains Oriented Clustering of Gene Ontology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KQNLCYWP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00099}
}

read the original abstract

Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis is a foundational tool for translating large-scale genomic data into biological insights, but typically yields hundreds of redundant terms that obscure overarching themes. Existing summarization tools rely on fixed similarity metrics (REVIGO, GOSemSim, clusterProfiler::simplify()), gene-overlap measures (Metascape), or static hierarchy mappings (GO-slim), and therefore cannot incorporate biological context. Manual curation provides context-aware grouping but is subjective and labor-intensive. A scalable, context-aware framework is needed to cluster GO terms into interpretable higher-order biological domains. Here we present LLMBDC (Large Language Model for Biological Domains Oriented Clustering of Gene Ontology), a training-free framework that leverages zero-shot semantic reasoning of LLMs with confidence scoring to cluster GO terms into BioDomains using only ontology information at inference time. Benchmarked across Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Fragile X syndrome (FXS) against six baseline methods including SapBERT, LLMBDC achieved substantially higher precision, recall, and clustering performance. Against ground-truth annotations, LLMBDC improved ARI from 9.7% to 73.3% (AD) and from 15.7% to 66.6% (FXS) over REVIGO, with corresponding NMI gains from 59.9% to 73.4% (AD) and 66.0% to 79.5% (FXS). A Cauchy combination test further confirmed that aggregated BioDomains retained statistically significant functional signals. LLMBDC provides a scalable, reproducible, and interpretable route to context-aware, system-level interpretation of GO enrichment results while preserving biological specificity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00099 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Overview of LlmBdc framework. as SapBERT [12], BioGPT [15], and PubMedBERT [7] provide foundational embeddings that are widely reused in downstream ontology tasks, and have been further specialized for GO through structure-aware variants. GoBERT [17], for instance, couples BERT with the GO graph via two GO-informed pre-training objectives, jointly capturing explicit and implicit relations among gene functions. Wh… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** An example of adaptive prompt with task descrip [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Domain-level signficance rank comparison be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Effect of prompting input, decoding temperature and “Unknown” label option on LlmBdc performance across AD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Flo- rencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shya- mal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

arXiv 2023
[2]

Michael Ashburner, Catherine A Ball, Judith A Blake, David Botstein, Heather Butler, J Michael Cherry, Allan P Davis, Kara Dolinski, Selina S Dwight, Janan T Eppig, et al. 2000. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nature genetics 25, 1 (2000), 25–29

2000
[3]

Cary, Jesse C

Gregory A. Cary, Jesse C. Wiley, Jake Gockley, Stephen Keegan, Sai Sruthi Amirtha Ganesh, Laura Heath, Robert R. Butler, Lara M. Mangravite, Ben- jamin A. Logsdon, Frank M. Longo, Allan Levey, Anna K. Greenwood, and Gre- gory W. Carter. 2024. Genetic and Multi-Omic Risk Assessment of Alzheimer’s Disease Implicates Core Associated Biological Domains (Alzhe...

2024
[4]

Chen, Christopher M

Edward Y. Chen, Christopher M. Tan, Yan Kou, Qiaonan Duan, Zichen Wang, Gabriela V. Meirelles, Neil R. Clark, and Avi Ma'ayan. 2013. Enrichr: interactive and collaborative HTML5 gene list enrichment analysis tool. BMC Bioinformat- ics 14 (2013), 128. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-14-128

doi:10.1186/1471-2105-14-128 2013
[5]

Li Chen, Peng Jin, and Zhaohui S Qin. 2016. DIV AN: accurate identification of non-coding disease-specific risk variants using multi-omics profiles. Genome biology 17, 1 (2016), 252

2016
[6]

Qin, Joyce Ho, Tianfan Fu, Jing Ma, Mengdi Huai, Fei Wang, and Carl Yang

Hejie Cui, Jiaying Lu, Ran Xu, Shiyu Wang, Wenjing Ma, Yue Yu, Shaojun Yu, Xuan Kan, Chen Ling, Liang Zhao, Zhaohui S. Qin, Joyce Ho, Tianfan Fu, Jing Ma, Mengdi Huai, Fei Wang, and Carl Yang. 2025. A review on knowledge graphs for healthcare: Resources, applications, and promises. Journal of Biomedical In- formatics (July 2025). doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2025.104861

arXiv 2025
[7]

Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Marie Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2022. PubMedBERT: A Pre- trained Biomedical Language Model for Biomedical Text Mining. Bioinformatics 38, 20 (2022), 5506–5513. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btac682

work page doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btac682 2022
[8]

Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incen- tivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 (2025)

arXiv 2025

Show all 35 references

[9]

Sonja Hänzelmann, Robert Castelo, and Justin Guinney. 2013. GSV A: gene set variation analysis for microarray and RNA-seq data. BMC bioinformatics 14, 1 (2013), 7

2013
[10]

Pillich, Dylan Fong, Kevin Smith, Robin Bachelder, Trey Ideker, and Dexter Pratt

Mengzhou Hu, Sahar Alkhairy, Ingoo Lee, Rudolf T. Pillich, Dylan Fong, Kevin Smith, Robin Bachelder, Trey Ideker, and Dexter Pratt. 2025. Evaluation of large language models for discovery of gene set function. Nature Methods 22 (2025), 82–91. doi:10.1038/s41592-024-02120-3

2025 doi
[11]

Minoru Kanehisa, Miho Furumichi, Yoko Sato, Masayuki Kawashima, and Mari Ishiguro-Watanabe. 2023. KEGG for taxonomy-based analysis of pathways and BioKDD’26, August 09–13, 2026, Jeju, Korea Ran et al. genomes. Nucleic acids research 51, D1 (2023), D587–D592

2023
[12]

Fangyu Liu, Ehsan Shareghi, Zaiqiao Meng, Marco Basaldella, and Nigel Collier
[13]

Yujun Liu and Jichun Xie. 2020. Cauchy combination test: a powerful test with analytic p-value calculation under arbitrary dependency structures. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 115, 529 (2020), 393–402. doi:10.1080/01621459.2018.1554485

2020
[14]

Jiaying Lu, Jiaming Shen, Bo Xiong, Wengjing Ma, Staab Steffen, and Carl Yang. 2023. HiPrompt: Few-Shot Biomedical Knowledge Fusion via Hierarchy- Oriented Prompting. In 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval ((SIGIR)) . do...

2023
[15]

Rui Luo, Lianhui Sun, Yuxuan Xia, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2022. BioGPT: Gener- ative Pre-trained Transformer for Biomedical Text Generation and Mining.Brief- ings in Bioinformatics (2022)

2022
[16]

Yuwei Miao, Yuzhi Guo, Hehuan Ma, Jingquan Yan, Feng Jiang, Weizhi An, Jean Gao, and Junzhou Huang. 2024. UniEntrezDB: Large-scale Gene Ontology Anno- tation Dataset and Evaluation Benchmarks with Unified Entrez Gene Identifiers. arXiv:2412.12688 [cs.DB] https://arxiv.org/abs/...

2024 arXiv
[17]

Yuwei Miao, Yuzhi Guo, Hehuan Ma, Jingquan Yan, Feng Jiang, Rui Liao, and Junzhou Huang. 2025. GoBERT: Gene Ontology Graph Informed BERT for Uni- versal Gene Function Prediction. arXiv: 2501.01930 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2501.01930

2025 arXiv
[18]

Marija Milacic, Deidre Beavers, Patrick Conley, Chuqiao Gong, Marc Gillespie, Johannes Griss, Robin Haw, Bijay Jassal, Lisa Matthews, Bruce May, et al. 2024. The reactome pathway knowledgebase 2024. Nucleic acids research 52, D1 (2024), D672–D678

2024
[19]

National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association. 2024. Common Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Research Ontology (CADRO). https://iadrp. nia.nih.gov/about/cadro Accessed: July 2025

2024
[20]

Eric Sven Ristad and Peter N Yianilos. 2002. Learning string-edit distance. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 20, 5 (2002), 522–532

2002
[21]

Emily B Sessa, Rishi R Masalia, N Arrigo, Michael S Barker, and John A Pelosi
[22]

Sherman, Ming Hao, Ju Qiu, Xiaoli Jiao, Michael W

Brad T. Sherman, Ming Hao, Ju Qiu, Xiaoli Jiao, Michael W. Baseler, H. Clifford Lane, Tomozumi Imamichi, and Weizhong Chang. 2022. DA VID: a web server for functional enrichment analysis and functional annotation of gene lists (2021 update). Nucleic Acids Research 50, W1 (2022...

2022 doi
[23]

Fran Supek, Maja Bošnjak, Nives Škunca, and Tomislav Šmuc. 2011. REVIGO summarizes and visualizes long lists of gene ontology terms. PLoS One 6, 7 (2011), e21800. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021800

2011 doi
[24]

Damian Szklarczyk, Rebecca Kirsch, Mikaela Koutrouli, Katerina Nastou, Far- rokh Mehryary, Radja Hachilif, Annika L Gable, Tao Fang, Nadezhda T Doncheva, Sampo Pyysalo, et al. 2023. The STRING database in 2023: protein– protein association networks and functional enrichment an...

2023
[25]

Paul D Thomas, Dustin Ebert, Anushya Muruganujan, Tremayne Mushayahama, Laurent-Philippe Albou, and Huaiyu Mi. 2022. PANTHER: Making genome-scale phylogenetics accessible to all. Protein Science 31, 1 (2022), 8–22

2022
[26]

Zhizheng Wang, Qiao Jin, Chih-Hsuan Wei, Shubo Tian, Po-Ting Lai, Qingqing Zhu, Chi-Ping Day, Christina Ross, Robert Leaman, and Zhiyong Lu. 2025. Ge- neAgent: self-verification language agent for gene-set analysis using domain databases. Nature Methods (2025). doi:10.1038/s41...

2025 doi
[27]

Zhexing Wen, Ha Nam Nguyen, Ziyuan Guo, Matthew A Lalli, Xinyuan Wang, Yijing Su, Nam-Shik Kim, Ki-Jun Yoon, Jaehoon Shin, Ce Zhang, et al. 2014. Synaptic dysregulation in a human iPS cell model of mental disorders. Nature 515, 7527 (2014), 414–418

2014
[28]

Tian Wu, Eryong Hu, Shuqing Xu, Meng Chen, Peizhi Guo, Zhitang Dai, Ting Feng, Lin Zhou, Wanyi Tang, Li Zhan, Xi Fu, Sheng Liu, Xiaowen Bo, and Guangchuang Yu. 2021. clusterProfiler 4.0: A universal enrichment tool for in- terpreting omics data. The Innovation 2, 3 (2021), 100...

2021 doi
[29]

Yuzhang Xie, Jiaying Lu, Joyce Ho, Fadi Nahab, Xiao Hu, and Carl Yang. 2024. PromptLink: Leveraging Large Language Models for Cross-Source Biomedical Concept Linking. In 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

2024
[30]

An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. 2025. Qwen3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[31]

Guangchuang Yu, Fei Li, Yide Qin, Xiaochen Bo, Yibo Wu, and Shengqi Wang
[32]

Yuyang Zhou, Beiqi Zhou, Lars Pache, Miao Chang, Amir H Khodabakhshi, Olga Tanaseichuk, Christopher Benner, and Sumit K Chanda. 2019. Metascape pro- vides a biologist-oriented resource for the analysis of systems-level datasets. Na- ture communications 10, 1 (2019), 1523. doi:...

2019 doi
[2010]

Bioinformatics 26, 7 (2010), 976–978

GOSemSim: an R package for measuring semantic similarity among GO terms and gene products. Bioinformatics 26, 7 (2010), 976–978. doi:10.1093/ bioinformatics/btq064

2010
[2020]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11784 (2020)

Self-alignment pretraining for biomedical entity representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11784 (2020)

2010 arXiv
[2023]

Applications in Plant Sciences 11, 4 (2023), e11536

GOgetter: A pipeline for summarizing and visualizing GO slim annotations for plant genetic data. Applications in Plant Sciences 11, 4 (2023), e11536. doi:10. 1002/aps3.11536

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Flo- rencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shya- mal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

Michael Ashburner, Catherine A Ball, Judith A Blake, David Botstein, Heather Butler, J Michael Cherry, Allan P Davis, Kara Dolinski, Selina S Dwight, Janan T Eppig, et al. 2000. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nature genetics 25, 1 (2000), 25–29

2000

[3] [3]

Cary, Jesse C

Gregory A. Cary, Jesse C. Wiley, Jake Gockley, Stephen Keegan, Sai Sruthi Amirtha Ganesh, Laura Heath, Robert R. Butler, Lara M. Mangravite, Ben- jamin A. Logsdon, Frank M. Longo, Allan Levey, Anna K. Greenwood, and Gre- gory W. Carter. 2024. Genetic and Multi-Omic Risk Assessment of Alzheimer’s Disease Implicates Core Associated Biological Domains (Alzhe...

2024

[4] [4]

Chen, Christopher M

Edward Y. Chen, Christopher M. Tan, Yan Kou, Qiaonan Duan, Zichen Wang, Gabriela V. Meirelles, Neil R. Clark, and Avi Ma'ayan. 2013. Enrichr: interactive and collaborative HTML5 gene list enrichment analysis tool. BMC Bioinformat- ics 14 (2013), 128. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-14-128

doi:10.1186/1471-2105-14-128 2013

[5] [5]

Li Chen, Peng Jin, and Zhaohui S Qin. 2016. DIV AN: accurate identification of non-coding disease-specific risk variants using multi-omics profiles. Genome biology 17, 1 (2016), 252

2016

[6] [6]

Qin, Joyce Ho, Tianfan Fu, Jing Ma, Mengdi Huai, Fei Wang, and Carl Yang

Hejie Cui, Jiaying Lu, Ran Xu, Shiyu Wang, Wenjing Ma, Yue Yu, Shaojun Yu, Xuan Kan, Chen Ling, Liang Zhao, Zhaohui S. Qin, Joyce Ho, Tianfan Fu, Jing Ma, Mengdi Huai, Fei Wang, and Carl Yang. 2025. A review on knowledge graphs for healthcare: Resources, applications, and promises. Journal of Biomedical In- formatics (July 2025). doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2025.104861

arXiv 2025

[7] [7]

Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Marie Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2022. PubMedBERT: A Pre- trained Biomedical Language Model for Biomedical Text Mining. Bioinformatics 38, 20 (2022), 5506–5513. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btac682

work page doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btac682 2022

[8] [8]

Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incen- tivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 (2025)

arXiv 2025