It was peer reviewed. Figure 2 directly compares the vibe coded platform to a local reference pipeline using simulated data with known ground truth. That validation step was improved during review.
It was peer reviewed. Figure 2 directly compares the vibe coded platform to a local reference pipeline using simulated data with known ground truth. That validation step was improved during review.
Thanks for sharing this. Iβve found that hands on use clarifies both the strengths and the limits. In experienced hands these tools can accelerate iteration, but they still require judgment and validation like anything else in science. I try to emphasize that balance in the paper too.
The debate around vibe coding in science is exactly what should be happening. New automation always raises real concerns. The path forward is not blind adoption or blanket rejection, but shared standards
Grateful you shared this. The intent was to spark exactly this discussion: how we can use AI to speed up tool building while keeping validation, reproducibility, and rigor front and center. I very much welcome the conversation.
Models absolutely inherit bias. That is a real concern. But this paper is not training AI to infer biology from literature. It uses an LLM as a coding assistant to scaffold a standard proteomics workflow, then validates the outputs against a reference pipeline with known ground truth.
I am a fan of judicious vibe-coding, but it requires training in a methodology to evaluate results. E.g., I pointed a wet lab PhD student to a LLM to code an excel formula for decoding mass spec composition strings. I think this is OK where you have an orthogonal method to validate your results.
What specifically donβt you like about the paper? It explains the approach to generating code, tests that the code produces correct results for a dataset with known properties, and provides the prompts, code, and data. The discussion includes caveats and areas needing further work.
in one month i vibe coded, trained, and eval'd a new family of deep learning models for de novo peptide sequencing. I applied ideas from ML preprints from Oct and Dec 2025 and achieved comparable performance to Casanovo on a single consumer-grade GPU
I have had several related experiences. Building in days huge deep learning ideas, testing many variants, and finding quickly that it's not a worthwhile. Imagine that a PhD student had instead done that manually over years and then had nothing for their dissertation
If you have tried vibe coding, you know it can be a super power for experienced coders π
On the "vibe coding omics analysis is here" demo paper, and some responses (run for the hills!), a thread for myself:
- we know that LLM-assisted or even driven coding is here. if you haven't tried it even in the last 3 months, you are behind
- yes it is powerful and enabling
1/7
Thanks for reading it and for your perspective
Most genius ideas seem obvious in hindsight
We are all software engineers now
No apologies needed! Just wait until you try the coding interfaces like Claude Code or antigravity! Antigravity will write thousands of lines for you if you give it clear long term goals and test definitions
We got the NOA for an MPI R01 from the NIA yesterday.
Greatful for all the collaborators, facilitators, mentors, and trainees in my group who made this possible.
It's hard to stay up to date with new literature. So many papers each week, which ones should I read?
That is why I built ReScoop.xyz - try it for free!
If you find it useful, less than the price of one Starbucks per month
Please check out our recent work published in Bioinformatics:
From Articles to Code: On-Demand Generation of Core Algorithms from Scientific Publications
url: academic.oup.com/bioinformati...
I haven't tried Claude Code personally but I have watched people in my group using it and it looks awesome. In my experience complex ideas are possible in antigravity if you define good test cases and go step by step
It's hard to stay up to date with new literature. So many papers each week, which ones should I read?
That is why I built ReScoop.xyz - try it for free!
If you find it useful, less than the price of one Starbucks per month
I suggest the free trial of antigravity, it's much better than copilot for software dev in my opinion
Thanks for your comment.
Have you tried Claude Opus 4.5, or when did you last try? Things got a lot better with the new models and agent systems like antigravity.
In my experience even much, much more complex tasks are not only possible, but nearly 100% successful
Vibe Coding Omics Data Analysis Applications pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/... #coding #proteomics #bioinformatics
A wake up call for cell culture. Antibiotics have very specific effects on the proteome. Read our latest work here π§ͺ
PenicillinβStreptomycin Treatment Rewires Core Metabolic and Ribosomal Programs in HepG2 Cells pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10....
We are now in a revolution on the magnitude of the printing press. Code production will soon be 100% automated. This paper attempts to document and discuss that shift. What do you think?
Vibe Coding Omics Data Analysis Applications π§ͺ pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10....
βWas it worth documenting the printing press in scientific literature, or just the first book it printed? Grateful for the dialogueβit's how we move from boilerplate to actual discovery! π
However, the platform is just the proof of concept for a foundational shift in code production. The real story isn't the specific choices the AI made in this draft, but the fact that you can now simply put your own expert preferences into the prompt and have a custom, functional pipeline in minutes.
I really appreciate the engagement and the technical pushbackβit's vital for refining the future of these tools. If this paper were just about the specific platform built in 10 minutes, Iβd agree that debating z-scoring or imputation methods would be the core issue
Grateful for the pushbackβitβs how we refine the future! π
Itβs a bit like debating whether the first page off a printing press was 'good' enough to publish. The real story wasn't the page itself, but the fact that the barrier to producing it had just collapsed forever. Marking that shift in the literature is exactly how we start building the new norms.