LLMs能辅助生物医学数据科学,但需改进提示和迭代才能有效提升代码准确率。
Can Large Language Models Replace Data Scientists in Biomedical Research?

- 用真实癌症基因组与临床数据构建293个编码任务基准,评估LLM在生物医学分析中的表现。
- 链式思考提示使代码准确率提升21%(达56.6%),自省机制提升11%(达45.5%)。
- 医疗人员使用后80%代码来自LLM生成,适合希望提速的数据分析新手或非编程专家。
数据科学在生物医学研究中至关重要,但依赖具备编程与医学数据分析能力的专业人才。大型语言模型(LLMs)虽在通用编码测试中表现良好,却缺乏针对生物医学数据科学的评估,尤其在处理基因组和临床数据等多样数据类型时。为此,我们基于39项已发表研究,构建了一个包含293个编码任务的基准(128个Python,165个R),均在真实世界TCGA型基因组与临床数据上执行。结果表明,原始提示下的LLMs表现不佳,主要因未能遵循指令、理解目标数据或遵守标准分析流程。我们评测了六种先进LLMs及适配方法,发现链式思考提示可使代码准确率提升21%(从35.3%升至56.6%),自省机制则提升11%(从34.3%升至45.5%)。基于此,我们开发了一个将LLMs集成到数据科学工作流的平台。五位医学专业人士参与用户研究发现,尽管LLMs无法完全自动化编程,但显著简化流程:80%的提交代码源自LLM生成,个别案例高达96%重用。分析表明,合理整合专家工作流后,LLMs有望大幅提升生物医学研究中的数据科学效率。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Data science plays a critical role in biomedical research, but it requires professionals with expertise in coding and medical data analysis. Large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential in supporting medical tasks and performing well in general coding tests. However, existing evaluations fail to assess their capability in biomedical data science, particularly in handling diverse data types such as genomics and clinical datasets. To address this gap, we developed a benchmark of data science coding tasks derived from the analyses of 39 published studies. This benchmark comprises 293 coding tasks (128 in Python and 165 in R) performed on real-world TCGA-type genomics and clinical data. Our findings reveal that the vanilla prompting of LLMs yields suboptimal performances due to drawbacks in following input instructions, understanding target data, and adhering to standard analysis practices. Next, we benchmarked six cutting-edge LLMs and advanced adaptation methods, finding two methods to be particularly effective: chain-of-thought prompting, which provides a step-by-step plan for data analysis, which led to a 21% code accuracy improvement (56.6% versus 35.3%); and self-reflection, enabling LLMs to refine the buggy code iteratively, yielding an 11% code accuracy improvement (45.5% versus 34.3%). Building on these insights, we developed a platform that integrates LLMs into the data science workflow for medical professionals. In a user study with five medical professionals, we found that while LLMs cannot fully automate programming tasks, they significantly streamline the programming process. We found that 80% of their submitted code solutions were incorporated from LLM-generated code, with up to 96% reuse in some cases. Our analysis highlights the potential of LLMs to enhance data science efficiency in biomedical research when integrated into expert workflows.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。