Developing ERAF-AI: An Early-stage ResearchAssessment Framework for Artificial Intelligence
Falvo, D.; Weidener, L. S.; Karlsson, M.
Show abstract
Today, most research evaluation frameworks are designed to assess mature projects with well-defined data and clearly articulated outcomes. Yet, few, if any, are equipped to evaluate the promise of early-stage biotechnology research, which is inherently characterized by limited evidence, high uncertainty, and evolving objectives. These early-stage projects require nuanced assessments that can adapt to incomplete information, project maturity, and shifting research questions. Furthermore, these challenges are compounded by the difficulty of systematically scaling evaluations with the increasing volume of research projects. As a step toward addressing this gap, we introduce the biotechnology-oriented Early-Stage Research Assessment Framework for Artificial Intelligence (ERAF-AI), a systematic approach to evaluate research at Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) 1 to 3 - research maturity levels where ideas are more conceptual and only preliminary evidence exists to indicate potential viability. By leveraging AI-driven methodologies and platforms such as the Coordination.Network, ERAF-AI ensures transparent, scalable, and context-sensitive evaluations that integrate research maturity classification, adaptive scoring, and strategic decision-making. Importantly, ERAF-AI aligns criteria with the unique demands of early-stage research, guiding evaluation through the 4P framework (Promote, Pause, Pivot, Perish) to inform next steps. As an initial demonstration of its potential, we apply ERAF-AI to a high-impact early-stage project, providing actionable insights and measurable improvement over conventional practices. Although ERAF-AI shows significant promise in improving the prioritization of early-stage research, further refinement, and validation across a wider range of disciplines and datasets is required to refine its scalability and adaptability. Overall, we expect this framework to serve as a valuable tool for empowering researchers to make informed decisions and to prioritize high-potential initiatives in the face of uncertainty and limited data.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The Mastery Rubric for Bioinformatics: supporting design and evaluation of career-spanning education and training 93%
- An interactive retrieval system for clinical trial studies with context-dependent protocol elements 93%
- Protocol For Human Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Clinical Consultations 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Supporting Reanalysis and Reuse of Clinical Trial Data: A Case Study 91%
- Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): Statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial 90%
- Development of a consensus extension of the estimands framework for cluster randomised trials (CRT-estimands): results from an international Delphi study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Network-based estimation of therapeutic efficacy and adverse reaction potential for prioritisation of anti-cancer drug combinations 90%
- Drug repositoning or target repositioning: a structural perspective of drug-target-indication relationship for available repurposed drugs. 89%
- Artemis: Harnessing Knowledge Graphs for Next-Generation Drug Target Prioritization 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Ethical review of clinical research with generative AI: Evaluating ChatGPT’s accuracy and reproducibility 94%
- Development and preliminary testing of Health Equity Across the AI Lifecycle (HEAAL): A framework for healthcare delivery organizations to mitigate the risk of AI solutions worsening health inequities 93%
- Artificial Intelligence's Contribution to Biomedical Literature Search: Revolutionizing or Complicating? 93%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.