Why Does the Human-in-the-Loop Approach Matter?

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) has significantly shaped life science research, beginning with foundational developments in the 1950s. The field of AI was formally recognized in 1956, and early systems like Dendral (1965), developed at Stanford, analyzed mass spectrometry data to deduce chemical structures. Similarly, MYCIN (1976) assisted in diagnosing bacterial infections and recommending antibiotics. These pioneering efforts marked the early application of AI in the life sciences, enabling the processing of complex biological data.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the focus shifted toward neural networks and machine learning, which significantly improved the ability to handle intricate datasets. The 21st century brought the rise of deep learning and transformer-based neural networks, positioning AI at the core of advancements in genomics, drug discovery, medical imaging, and wearable health devices. These innovations have reduced research timelines and costs through increased automation.

Now, in 2025, the emergence of agentic AI marks a new frontier in life sciences. Unlike traditional AI, which primarily supports data analysis, agentic AI can autonomously devise plans, set goals, and execute strategies—functioning as a virtual research assistant. For instance, Causaly’s agentic AI platform, Causaly Discover, leverages a knowledge graph containing over 500 million facts and 70 million directional relationships across 8 relationship types. It enables researchers to answer complex biomedical questions within minutes, significantly reducing the time required for target identification and validation. The platform also integrates with external resources and supports collaborative workspaces with automated alerts.

Another notable example is Merck Life Science, which used agentic automation to streamline global compliance processes and, in doing so, achieved substantial time savings, near-zero errors, and better tracking and response times. Similarly, Boston Scientific reported 100% accuracy in handling medical data using agentic automation, resulting in enhanced customer care and operational efficiency.

While AI and ML have advanced significantly, depending entirely on them for key bioinformatics tasks has its drawbacks. In this article, we’ll briefly examine these limitations, highlighting how biological complexity and the need for interdisciplinary input make human involvement indispensable.

Understanding the AI Trap in Life Science Research

Despite the transformative impact of AI in life sciences, a growing concern is the tendency to overestimate its capabilities—an issue often referred to as “The AI Trap.” This term reflects the mistaken belief that AI models, especially large-scale or agentic systems, can independently solve all complex biological problems. While AI excels at pattern recognition and delivers results at remarkable speed, overreliance on these systems as shortcuts to discovery introduces serious risks.

The AI Trap, therefore, is not a failure of AI itself, but a failure to recognize the limits of automation in the absence of human insight. As enthusiasm for AI continues to grow, so too must our awareness of its boundaries. Understanding why AI cannot, and should not, replace scientific judgment is vital before we can fully and responsibly integrate it into life science research.

So, what exactly prevents AI from operating independently in life science research? What are the roadblocks we need to understand? Let us explore.

Key Barriers to Fully Autonomous AI in Biological Research

1. Lack of mechanistic understanding

AI and ML models, particularly deep learning architectures, are often described as “black boxes” because they generate predictions without providing insights into the underlying biological mechanisms. In life science research, understanding the causal relationships driving predictions is critical. For instance, in drug discovery, knowing why a compound is predicted to be effective can guide the design of better drugs or reveal potential side effects. Mechanistic models, built on established biological principles, offer a clearer view of interactions and pathways, enhancing scientific understanding.

The lack of mechanistic insight in AI models can also hinder validation and trust, especially in clinical settings where decisions impact patient outcomes. Without transparency, researchers and clinicians may struggle to adopt these models, limiting their practical utility. Combining AI with mechanistic modeling, as suggested in recent studies, can bridge this gap, but relying solely on data-driven approaches risks missing critical biological context.

2. Data quality and quantity issues

Bioinformatics datasets, derived from technologies like next-generation sequencing or mass spectrometry, are often noisy, incomplete, or affected by batch effects and biological variability. AI and ML models require high-quality, well-curated data to perform effectively, but ensuring this in bioinformatics is challenging due to diverse data sources and formats. Poor data quality can lead to inaccurate predictions and biased models, undermining scientific conclusions.

Moreover, many AI models, especially deep learning ones, demand large amounts of labeled data, which can be scarce in bioinformatics due to the high cost and time required for data generation. For example, training a model like AlphaFold2 for protein structure prediction would require significant computational resources and data. Without addressing data-related hurdles, exclusive dependence on AI-based solutions can result in suboptimal performance and limited applicability.

3. Overfitting and generalization problems

Overfitting occurs when an AI model learns noise or specific patterns in training data that do not generalize to new data. In bioinformatics analyses, where datasets often have high dimensionality (e.g., thousands of genes) but limited samples, overfitting is a significant risk. Overfitted models may perform well on training data but fail in real-world applications like disease diagnosis, where accuracy is critical.

Techniques like cross-validation and regularization can mitigate overfitting, but they do not eliminate it entirely. The inherent heterogeneity in biological data, such as genetic variations across populations, poses additional challenges for generalization in bioinformatics. Such concerns reflect the possibility that AI-powered bioinformatics research could lead to inconsistent results and disrupt the pace of research.

4. Interpretability challenges

The complexity of AI models, particularly deep neural networks, makes them difficult to interpret, posing a challenge in life science research applications where understanding the reasoning behind predictions is essential. For example, in personalized medicine, clinicians need to know why a model recommends a specific treatment to ensure it aligns with biological knowledge. Explainable AI (XAI) methods are being developed to address this, but they are not yet fully effective for complex models.

This lack of interpretability can reduce trust among researchers and clinicians, especially in high-stakes applications. Transparent models or hybrid approaches that combine AI with interpretable methods are often essential to ensure predictions are both accurate and understandable—otherwise, sole reliance on AI limits its usefulness and acceptance in life sciences research.

5. Bias and ethical concerns

AI models can inherit biases from training data, leading to unfair or inaccurate outcomes. In life science research studies, where data may be skewed toward specific populations or experimental conditions, this can result in models that perform poorly for underrepresented groups. For example, a model trained on genomic data from European populations may not accurately predict disease risks for African or Asian individuals, potentially exacerbating healthcare disparities.

Ethical concerns also arise when biased models are used in clinical decision-making, as they can affect patient care and treatment outcomes. Ensuring fairness requires meticulous data curation and effective bias mitigation strategies, which are not always straightforward. Failure to account for ethical concerns in AI applications within bioinformatics may erode trust and exacerbate inequities in research and healthcare outcomes.

6. Requirements for computational resources

Training and deploying some AI models—especially deep learning—in bioinformatics requires substantial computational resources, including GPUs, TPUs, and high-memory systems. Research institutions with limited funding often struggle to access these resources, creating a significant barrier. Additionally, managing such infrastructure demands technical expertise that many labs may lack. These challenges can hinder the adoption of AI in life science research settings, particularly among smaller research groups and exclude diverse research contributions, slowing innovation in the field.

7. Validation and reproducibility

Validating and reproducing AI models in bioinformatics is challenging due to their sensitivity to hyperparameters, data preprocessing, and random seeds. For example, a study showed that identical training runs for a deep learning model resulted in accuracy variations from 8.6% to 99.0%. In life sciences, where research builds on prior findings, this variability can hinder progress and erode trust.

Comprehensive validation depends on independent datasets that reflect biological variability, yet such datasets are often lacking. Although robust reproducibility practices such as thorough documentation and standardized protocols are critical, they are not always consistently applied. Therefore, thoughtful integration of AI is crucial as failing to do so may compromise the reliability of findings and hinder scientific progress.

The Role of Domain Expertise in Life Science Research

Domain knowledge in life science research includes a deep understanding of biological systems, molecular interactions, experimental methodologies, and related scientific principles. While AI and ML can identify statistical patterns in data, they often lack the contextual understanding that domain experts provide, which is critical for interpreting results and ensuring their biological relevance.

Many important phenomena in living organisms, such as rare genetic mutations or specific disease occurrences, are infrequent, leading to imbalanced datasets. Standard AI models often struggle with these, favoring the majority class and missing rare events, which can be critical in applications like disease diagnosis or drug safety. Techniques like oversampling or cost-sensitive learning can help, but they add complexity and may not fully address the issue.

Thus, in life science research, where rare events and complex biological contexts often elude standard AI models, the need for solutions that go beyond automation is evident. Addressing these gaps takes more than just automated workflows. A customized AI strategy is essential for delivering both rapid and reliable results that push the boundaries of innovation. Only through a thoughtful blend of customized solutions, combining computational efficiency with expert oversight, can we ensure that AI applications are accurate, relevant, and actionable in real-world life science research.

AI-Powered Biological Data Analysis with Expert Validation — The DataPrudence Approach

What truly sets our AI solutions apart is the human expertise behind them. At DataPrudence, we believe in:

• AI for speed and automation
• Expert bioinformaticians for domain knowledge, accuracy, and validation

Our PhD-level bioinformaticians and data scientists guide the AI at every stage—curating training data, setting optimal parameters, and interpreting outputs with scientific precision. Once your data is processed using best-in-class pipelines and intelligent automation, our experts personally review and interpret the results. We also walk you through the findings, so you can ask questions, discuss insights, and fully understand what the results mean for your research.

In practice, this means you get the best of both worlds: the efficiency of automation combined with the quality assurance of expert review.

Explore the range of our services: https://dataprudence.com/what-we-do/
Have a query? Contact our team: https://dataprudence.com/contact-us/

References:

1. Jamialahmadi H, Khalili-Tanha G, Nazari E, et al. Artificial intelligence and bioinformatics: A journey from traditional techniques to smart approaches. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2024;17(3):241–252.

2. Karim MR, Islam T, Shajalal M, et al. Explainable AI for bioinformatics: Methods, tools and applications. Brief Bioinform. 2023;24(5):bbad236.

3. Auslander N, Gussow AB, Koonin EV. Incorporating machine learning into established bioinformatics frameworks. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(6):2903.

4. Li Q, Hu Z, Wang Y, et al. Progress and opportunities of foundation models in bioinformatics. Brief Bioinform. 2024;25(6):bbae548.

5. Shi L, Wang M, Wang X‑J. Application of artificial intelligence in life science: Historical review and future perspectives. Fundam Res (Beijing). 2024.

6. Karunanayake, Nalan. (2025). Next-generation agentic AI for transforming healthcare. 10.1016/j.infoh.2025.03.001.

7. Axtria unveils transformational agentic AI platform for life sciences. Available at: https://pharmaphorum.com/news/axtria-unveils-transformational-agentic-ai-platform-life-sciences. Accessed on: 19 May 2025.

8. Accelerating Life Sciences Innovation with Agentic AI on AWS. Available at: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/industries/accelerating-life-sciences-innovation-with-agentic-ai-on-aws/. Accessed on: 19 May 2025.