Most errors in interpreting a lab result happen before you open a pathway tool. A thread on what the evidence shows ๐งต 46.0% of 278 widely used tumour cell lines in one study were cross-contaminated or misidentified (PMID: 28107433).
95% of published over-representation analyses didn't use or report an appropriate background gene list (PMID: 35263338).
A guide to 10 tools for interpreting biomedical results, and where interpretation goes wrong ๐
https://t.co/jEs1PtTNpP
New on the BioSkepsis blog: Best Claude plugins for life-science research in 2026.
Bio Research, K-Dense Scientific Agent Skills and Claude Science: what each does, where each stops, and which fits your work.
Read it ๐https://t.co/PZaSkOAO39
We gave BioSkepsis one question: How do spatial transcriptomics platforms compare for tumour-immune mapping, and what has held up clinically?
It came back with the platform comparisons, the validation methods, and a PMID on every claim.
Read the results:
https://t.co/uOaPVAM4tF
134 specialists, 11 variants, 4 cancer cases. Same guideline, same data.
Only 59% of classifications matched consensus on both tier and clinical significance. That is where a molecular tumour board's reasoning starts.
Read the blog that breaks it down ๐
https://t.co/S1tO6K6kDg
A trial gave 50 doctors an AI assistant and compared them to doctors working without one.
No drastic improvement. 76% vs 74%.
The AI on its own, same cases, scored higher than either group of doctors. ๐ต๐ฎ%
๐ https://t.co/eF7yYBWORC
Can silencing a single liver gene do more for hereditary angioedema than a lifetime of prophylaxis?
That's the question in vivo CRISPR now forces.
Full breakdown, every claim PMID-traceable ๐
https://t.co/1uGg8CuP44
Want to ask a research question, walk away to your benchtop work, and come back to a fully worked, citation-grounded answer?
That's the new Agentic Mode in BioSkepsis.
Watch the full step-by-step demo ๐
https://t.co/8fK07frUHa
You published your paper two years ago. Last month, one of its citations was retracted - and nobody told you.
Evidence Watch monitors every claim you cite and flags it the moment new evidence weakens, overturns, or retracts it.
Step-by-step demo ๐
https://t.co/igUBa6wRCP
Every AI can hand you an answer, but none can tell you how much you can actually ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญย it.
BioSkepsis Agentic Mode scores every brief on a ๐๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐ง๐๐๐ฑ. Each finding is checked against the source's full text with six independent checks.
๐https://t.co/7RdgVcxZZR
BioSkepsis is now as Claude connector!
Ask a life-science question in Claude and get back a citation-grounded brief, with retracted papers and questioned cell lines already screened out. Every run saves to your BioSkepsis account.
Connect it ๐https://t.co/Xm5Nfn12Xj
Ask any AI a research question and you never know what it actually reads or cites. With BioSkepsis every reference points to a real indexed paper.
๐๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ฐ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐น๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐น๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐บ ๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐น๐, ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฏ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ
๐https://t.co/kxAbq1aYWq
Can AlphaFold 3 accurately predict ternary complex geometries for molecular glues and targeted protein degradation?
Explore three hypotheses, named proteins, named assays, stated falsification criteria, every claim PMID-traceable.
๐https://t.co/2bea1Fj0Ws
๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ฐ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ข
You give it a research question and it does all the grunt work for you.
For launch week, Plus and Pro are 25% off.
๐๐ผ Comment "agentic" to receive the promo code.
You think a drug fails because the science didn't work?Often, the biology was flawless, it was the business model that failed.
Why we are abandoning highly effective, life-saving molecules mid-development ๐
https://t.co/tpfSqdG9A6