Large language model (LLM) agents hold promise for accelerating biomedical research and development (R&D). Several biomedical agents have recently been proposed, but their evaluation has largely been restricted to question answering (e.g., LAB-Bench) or narrow bioinformatics tasks. Presently, there remains a lack of benchmarks evaluating agent capability in multi-step data analysis workflows or in solving the machine learning (ML) challenges central to AI-driven therapeutics development, such as perturbation response modeling or drug toxicity prediction. We introduce BioML-bench, the first benchmarking suite for evaluating AI agents on end-to-end biomedical ML tasks. BioML-bench spans four domains (protein engineering, single-cell omics, biomedical imaging, and drug discovery) with tasks that require agents to parse a task description, build a pipeline, implement models, and submit predictions graded by established metrics (e.g., AUROC, Spearman). We evaluate four open-source agents: two biomedical specialists (STELLA, Biomni) and two generalists (AIDE, MLAgentBench). On average, agents underperform relative to human baselines, and biomedical specialization does not confer a consistent advantage. We also found that agents which attempted more diverse ML strategies more often tended to score highest, suggesting that architecture and scaffolding may be stronger determinants of performance. These findings underscore both the potential and current limits of agentic systems for biomedical ML, and highlight the need for systematic, reproducible evaluation. BioML-bench is provided open-source at https://github.com/science-machine/biomlbench.
Miller et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: