The authors presented PESTO (Prior Evidence Status from Text and Ontologies), a source-grounded framework that combines large language model–based literature curation with structured genetic evidence to classify gene-phenotype associations. Applied to 940 significant associations from two rare-variant studies, the pipeline produced discrete evidence-status calls. The cohort showed that 7% of associations were labeled Novel, meaning no prior evidence was identified in the sources searched; 21% were labeled Hypothesized, reflecting only indirect or mechanistic support. These figures come directly from the manuscript and reflect the authors’ summary of PESTO’s initial application.
PESTO’s architecture couples text-mining of the biomedical literature with ontology-anchored, structured genetic resources. The study team described a classification schema with four categories: Novel (no prior evidence found), Hypothesized (indirect or mechanistic support only), Existing, and Established. The source article provided this taxonomy and the conceptual approach; specific model prompts, scoring thresholds, or internal weights were not reported in detail in the abstract. The investigators reported that PESTO is designed to be interpretable and source-grounded — each association is linked to retrieved articles, relevance bands, and the model’s raw responses as recorded in the deposited outputs.
The authors compared PESTO classifications with independent benchmarks of expert gene-disease curation. Data indicated concordance between PESTO outputs and expert curations across those benchmarks. The system also recovered recently reported associations that were poorly captured by the model’s internal knowledge alone, suggesting the retrieval component can access newer literature or domain-specific records beyond the model’s pretraining cutoff. The manuscript provides supplemental tables and a public archive of every model answer, including PMIDs and titles of retrieved articles, relevance bands, and configuration-dependent results.
Investigators examined evidence accrual over time. They reported that associations labeled Hypothesized were more likely than those labeled Novel to later acquire human genetic support. That longitudinal observation implies that indirect or mechanistic signals carry predictive value for future genetic confirmation. The abstract summarized this trend but did not list event counts, time windows, or exact follow-up intervals in the text presented here; those methodological specifics are available in the full manuscript and supplementary materials deposited by the authors.
PESTO-derived evidence landscapes reflected disease-specific patterns in genetic constraint, tissue expression, and gene function. The study team observed alignment between the framework’s classifications and expected biological signatures for particular disorders. For example, genes assigned stronger prior evidence tended to show consistent signals in gnomAD constraint metrics and expression atlases referenced by the authors. The preprint reports that these concordant patterns support the framework’s ability to synthesize heterogeneous evidence modalities into actionable status calls.
All input data used in the study were obtained from publicly accessible resources. The authors listed GenCC (including ClinGen and Gene2Phenotype), the NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog, BRaVa rare-variant results, All of Us association outputs, the Autism Sequencing Consortium gene list, SCHEMA, Epi25, BipEx, denovo-db, gnomAD v4 constraint, GTEx, Human Protein Atlas, Descartes fetal expression, and multiple ontologies and annotation resources (Open Targets, HGNC, MONDO, Gene Ontology, NCBI gene2pubmed). The manuscript’s Data Availability section provides links to these resources and to the authors’ code and result archives.
The authors made all model answers and configuration records publicly available on Zenodo, and the PESTO codebase was released on GitHub with a permanent Zenodo archive. The deposited outputs include one record per gene-phenotype pair with search terms, retrieved PMIDs and titles, relevance bands, classifications, and raw model responses. Article full texts were excluded from the archive for copyright reasons; each article is identified by PMID in the release.
This report is a preprint posted to medRxiv and has not undergone peer review. The authors declared that the study used only previously published, openly available summary statistics and gene-level resources; no individual-level participant data were accessed. Competing interest disclosures are provided in the manuscript. The abstract and metadata do not provide exhaustive methodological parameters (for example, exact prompt templates, scoring thresholds, or the precise literature-retrieval ranking algorithm in full detail); those elements are available in the full-text and supplementary materials the authors have released. Open questions remaining in the preprint include the framework’s performance across other study designs, how classification thresholds perform in prospectively collected datasets, and how PESTO’s calls should be operationalized for clinical versus research prioritization — items the authors leave to further work and which will benefit from peer review and external replication.