Prompt-to-Paper: Agentic AI System for Bioinformatics

While recent advances in large language models have enabled end-to-end automated manuscript generation, existing systems suffer from three critical deficiencies: (i) generated claims are not deterministically grounded in verifiable literature, (ii) experimental results are frequently fabricated rather than executed, and (iii) there exists no standardized, multi-dimensional framework to assess whether AI-generated manuscripts meet the quality and rigor required for real-world publication. We present Prompt-to-Paper, a multi-agent framework that directly addresses this evaluation gap through three integrated innovations. First, a deterministic retrieval-augmented generation pipeline with section-aware relevance scoring and snowball citation expansion grounds every claim in a verifiable corpus of 60--100 papers. Second, an autonomous coding agent executes real computational biology experiments replacing synthetic outputs with genuine numerical results. Third, an eight-dimensional automated quality scorer, benchmarked with approximate reference statistics from published papers and augmented with explicit hallucination penalties, provides standardized, reproducible quality assessments. The quality-driven improvement loop uses a context-rich reviser that routes each iteration to one of three researcher actions and fires a deep research cycle every ten iterations to re-run experiments and re-manuscript from stronger outputs. We validate the system on five bioinformatics case studies; all five cases compiled submission-formatted PDFs with zero out-of-range citations. The improvement loop raises manuscript quality by an average of +17.96 points on a 0--100 scale (maximum +26.04. As partial external checks, a human reviewer scored the five manuscripts at an average of 7.0 out of 10. Complete manuscripts are produced at approximately 0.31 USD per paper.

Trust but Verify: Mitigating Medical Hallucinations via Post-Hoc Adversarial Auditing and Multi-Agent Feedback Loops

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in healthcare settings, yet their tendency to hallucinate poses risks when clinical decisions are involved. This study examine whether LLMs recommend recently banned or withdrawn pharmaceuticals when answering clinical questions and tests an agent-based method for reducing such errors. We developed a five-agent "Trust but Verify" system using a single LLM backbone. To measure regulatory knowledge obsolescence, we created an adversarial dataset of 103 clinical MCQs where historically correct answers now refer to banned substances. This scale ensures statistical significance across various therapeutic classes. We evaluated three open-access model families (GPT-OSS, Llama-3, Falcon-3) under vanilla and agentic conditions. Performance was measured via pointwise score, label accuracy, Hallucination Error Rate (HER), and Component Fidelity (CF) score. We also observed clinical safety regression in proprietary models. In default configurations, all models showed high hallucination rates, consistently selecting banned drugs that matched training data patterns. Our proposed agentic architecture reduced HER by approximately 53% across models. Pointwise scores shifted from -0.25 (unsafe recommendation) toward 0.0 (appropriate refusal). The safety audit intercepted dangerous outputs even when models' parametric knowledge favored the banned substance. The proposed multi-agent framework offers a model-agnostic method for enforcing regulatory compliance that prioritizes patient safety over fluent text generation. Our work demonstrates a practical approach for deploying autonomous AI systems in safety-critical healthcare settings. It shows how real-time regulatory data can be integrated into LLM pipelines to support clinical decision-making.