With the exponential growth of the life science literature, biomedical text mining (BTM) has become an essential technology for accelerating the extraction of insights from publications. Identifying named entities (e.g., diseases, drugs, or genes) in texts and their linkage to reference knowledge bases are crucial steps in BTM pipelines to enable information aggregation from different documents. However, tools for these two steps are rarely applied in the same context in which they were developed. Instead, they are applied in the wild, i.e., on application-dependent text collections different from those used for the tools' training, varying, e.g., in focus, genre, style, and text type. This raises the question of whether the reported performance of BTM tools can be trusted for downstream applications. Here, we report on the results of a carefully designed cross-corpus benchmark for named entity extraction, where tools were applied systematically to corpora not used during their training. Based on a survey of 28 published systems, we selected five for an in-depth analysis on three publicly available corpora encompassing four different entity types. Comparison between tools results in a mixed picture and shows that, in a cross-corpus setting, the performance is significantly lower than the one reported in an in-corpus setting. HunFlair2 showed the best performance on average, being closely followed by PubTator. Our results indicate that users of BTM tools should expect diminishing performances when applying them in the wild compared to original publications and show that further research is necessary to make BTM tools more robust.

Scientific workflow systems are increasingly popular for expressing and executing complex data analysis pipelines over large datasets, as they offer reproducibility, dependability, and scalability of analyses by automatic parallelization on large compute clusters. However, implementing workflows is difficult due to the involvement of many black-box tools and the deep infrastructure stack necessary for their execution. Simultaneously, user-supporting tools are rare, and the number of available examples is much lower than in classical programming languages. To address these challenges, we investigate the efficiency of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT, to support users when dealing with scientific workflows. We performed three user studies in two scientific domains to evaluate ChatGPT for comprehending, adapting, and extending workflows. Our results indicate that LLMs efficiently interpret workflows but achieve lower performance for exchanging components or purposeful workflow extensions. We characterize their limitations in these challenging scenarios and suggest future research directions.

Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to be able to perform new tasks based on a few demonstrations or natural language instructions. While these capabilities have led to widespread adoption, most LLMs are developed by resource-rich organizations and are frequently kept from the public. As a step towards democratizing this powerful technology, we present BLOOM, a 176B-parameter open-access language model designed and built thanks to a collaboration of hundreds of researchers. BLOOM is a decoder-only Transformer language model that was trained on the ROOTS corpus, a dataset comprising hundreds of sources in 46 natural and 13 programming languages (59 in total). We find that BLOOM achieves competitive performance on a wide variety of benchmarks, with stronger results after undergoing multitask prompted finetuning. To facilitate future research and applications using LLMs, we publicly release our models and code under the Responsible AI License.