Re:GPT‑Rosalind for life sciences research
by jostmey on Thursday April 16, 2026 @08:33PM
(#47801234)
The real issue isn’t finding therapies but getting them tested in clinical trials
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:GPT‑Rosalind for life sciences research
by XenophileJKO on Thursday April 16, 2026 @10:56PM
(#47802026)
I would argue that while you still have failed trials, then we have room to improve trial vetting.
Re:GPT‑Rosalind for life sciences research
by Gethsemane on Friday April 17, 2026 @10:17AM
(#47806202)
I somewhat agree, in that most of these life science adjacent demos are essentially "find good drug targets for $DISEASE", which mostly overfit to existing, well-classified drugs and targets. The biggest gains IMO will be in improved connectors with autonomous lab platforms, better sharing and annotation of relevant data sets, and yes also improving the pathway to clinical trials.
At the moment, it feels like releases like this overcommit and overpromise on "PhD level reasoning", which I wouldn't say is the absolute bottleneck in clinical research.