Can Large Language Models Classify and Generate Antimicrobial Resistance Genes?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the application of generative Large Language Models (LLMs) in DNA sequence analysis, highlighting their advantages over encoder-based models like DNABERT2 and Nucleotide Transformer. While encoder models excel in classification, they struggle to integrate external textual information. In contrast, generative LLMs can incorporate domain knowledge, such as BLASTn annotations, to improve classification accuracy even without fine-tuning. We evaluate this capability on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) gene classification, comparing generative LLMs with encoder-based baselines. Results show that LLMs significantly enhance classification when supplemented with textual information. Additionally, we demonstrate their potential in DNA sequence generation, further expanding their applicability. Our findings suggest that LLMs offer a novel paradigm for integrating biological sequences with external knowledge, bridging gaps in traditional classification methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it