A practical risk framework for large language model use in life science research
- 1Linus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, United States of America
- 2Department of Microbiology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, United States of America
- 3Department of Statistics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, United States of America
Abstract
Responsible use of large language models (LLMs) in life science research demands a unified approach to risk, yet existing guidance treats prompting and verification as separate topics rather than as integrated components of a single risk management framework. This paper addresses that gap for life science researchers. We explain how LLM architecture produces both remarkable capabilities and characteristic failures including hallucination and sycophancy, with particular attention to vulnerabilities most relevant to life science workflows. We argue that effective prompt design is itself a primary risk management strategy, reducing the probability and severity of characteristic failures before verification is required, and introduce a structured framework for matching downstream verification effort to risk across dimensions of output verifiability, researcher expertise, and consequence of error. We apply both layers to common research tasks, including literature synthesis, code generation, writing assistance, statistical reasoning, and administrative work, with documentation practices and ethical obligations addressed throughout. Six supplementary guides extend each component into detailed workflows, worked examples, and reference checklists, and a companion open-source repository (https://github.com/SharptonLab/PromptLab) provides tested prompts and verification tools for immediate use. Together, these resources are designed to help researchers use these tools carefully and document how they did so.
Related
- How science gets by with a little help from the Beatles: Detecting cultural wordplay in scientific literature using large language models
- Core open science practices in major medical journals: development of an automatized tool based on a Large Language Model
- Uneven research attention to biodiversity loss revealed by large language models
- pxGPT: a schema-constrained multimodal large language model framework for plant phenotyping
- Bayesian Hierarchical Models for Longitudinal Meta-Analysis in Sports Science: A Practical Tutorial Using brms
BibTeX
@article{sharpton2026practical,
title = {{A practical risk framework for large language model use in life science research}},
author = {Thomas Sharpton and Edward W. Davis II and Alexandra Alexiev},
journal = {PLOS Computational Biology},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014776},
url = {https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014776},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - A practical risk framework for large language model use in life science research
AU - Thomas Sharpton
AU - Edward W. Davis II
AU - Alexandra Alexiev
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/16
JO - PLOS Computational Biology
DO - 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014776
UR - https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014776
AB - Responsible use of large language models (LLMs) in life science research demands a unified approach to risk, yet existing guidance treats prompting and verification as separate topics rather than as integrated components of a single risk management framework. This paper addresses that gap for life science researchers. We explain how LLM architecture produces both remarkable capabilities and characteristic failures including hallucination and sycophancy, with particular attention to vulnerabilities most relevant to life science workflows. We argue that effective prompt design is itself a primary risk management strategy, reducing the probability and severity of characteristic failures before verification is required, and introduce a structured framework for matching downstream verification effort to risk across dimensions of output verifiability, researcher expertise, and consequence of error. We apply both layers to common research tasks, including literature synthesis, code generation, writing assistance, statistical reasoning, and administrative work, with documentation practices and ethical obligations addressed throughout. Six supplementary guides extend each component into detailed workflows, worked examples, and reference checklists, and a companion open-source repository (https://github.com/SharptonLab/PromptLab) provides tested prompts and verification tools for immediate use. Together, these resources are designed to help researchers use these tools carefully and document how they did so.
SN - 1553-7358
ER -