Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
110 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Scientific Hypothesis Generation by a Large Language Model: Laboratory Validation in Breast Cancer Treatment (2405.12258v2)

Published 20 May 2024 in q-bio.QM, cs.LG, and q-bio.CB

Abstract: LLMs have transformed AI and achieved breakthrough performance on a wide range of tasks that require human intelligence. In science, perhaps the most interesting application of LLMs is for hypothesis formation. A feature of LLMs, which results from their probabilistic structure, is that the output text is not necessarily a valid inference from the training text. These are 'hallucinations', and are a serious problem in many applications. However, in science, hallucinations may be useful: they are novel hypotheses whose validity may be tested by laboratory experiments. Here we experimentally test the use of LLMs as a source of scientific hypotheses using the domain of breast cancer treatment. We applied the LLM GPT4 to hypothesize novel pairs of FDA-approved non-cancer drugs that target the MCF7 breast cancer cell line relative to the non-tumorigenic breast cell line MCF10A. In the first round of laboratory experiments GPT4 succeeded in discovering three drug combinations (out of 12 tested) with synergy scores above the positive controls. These combinations were itraconazole + atenolol, disulfiram + simvastatin and dipyridamole + mebendazole. GPT4 was then asked to generate new combinations after considering its initial results. It then discovered three more combinations with positive synergy scores (out of four tested), these were disulfiram + fulvestrant, mebendazole + quinacrine and disulfiram + quinacrine. A limitation of GPT4 as a generator of hypotheses was that its explanations for them were formulaic and unconvincing. We conclude that LLMs are an exciting novel source of scientific hypotheses.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (11)
  1. Abbi Abdel-Rehim (3 papers)
  2. Hector Zenil (100 papers)
  3. Oghenejokpeme Orhobor (5 papers)
  4. Marie Fisher (1 paper)
  5. Ross J. Collins (1 paper)
  6. Elizabeth Bourne (1 paper)
  7. Gareth W. Fearnley (1 paper)
  8. Emma Tate (1 paper)
  9. Holly X. Smith (1 paper)
  10. Larisa N. Soldatova (1 paper)
  11. Ross D. King (14 papers)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.