M. Li

Aashna P. Shah, Michelle M. Li, Yash Lal et al.

Blood-based biomarkers underpin clinical diagnosis and management, yet their interpretation relies largely on fixed population reference intervals that ignore stable, intra-patient variability. As such, population-based interpretation can mask meaningful deviation from an individual's baseline, risking delayed disease detection. To remedy this, there have been increasing efforts to personalize blood biomarker interpretation using individual testing histories. However, these methods may overfit to sparse data, inflating false-positive rates and unnecessary follow-up, and can also unwittingly include unrecognized or subclinical disease. Here, we leverage nearly 2 billion longitudinal laboratory measurements from over 1.6 million individuals across North America, the Middle East, and East Asia, to show that while laboratory values are highly individual, purely personalized intervals routinely overfit, classifying up to 68% of measurements as abnormal, without corresponding associations with adverse clinical outcomes. We then introduce NORMA, a conditional transformer-based framework that generates reference intervals by conditioning on both a patient's history and population-level data about "normal" variation. NORMA-derived intervals achieve higher precision for predicting outcomes, including mortality, acute kidney injury, and chronic disease. These findings caution against over-personalization in laboratory medicine and demonstrate that anchoring individual trajectories to population-level priors outperforms either approach alone. To promote transparency, we publicly release the model, code, and an interactive user interface for accessible, individualized laboratory interpretation.

Lukas Fesser, Hanlin Zhang, Michelle M. Li et al.

Scientific reasoning models for biology combine language models with foundation models trained on multimodal biological data, including DNA, RNA, and proteins. These models are built through post-training, yet how each stage shapes reasoning and generalization remains poorly understood. We study when post-training improves performance and when it induces over-specialization. Across genomics, transcriptomics, and proteins, we train and evaluate more than 100 biological reasoning models under controlled variation in backbone, continued pre-training (CPT), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning (RL), measuring both in-domain (ID) and out-of-domain (OOD) performance. We find that each post-training stage reshapes generalization in a distinct way rather than contributing uniform gains. CPT improves downstream performance by aligning models with biological language. SFT consistently increases ID performance but causes OOD performance to peak early and decline as models fit the training distribution. RL, when applied to strong SFT checkpoints with aligned rewards, improves OOD performance and partially recovers generalization. These results show that biological reasoning does not improve monotonically with additional supervision or compute. Instead, performance depends on how training stages are composed. Under fixed post-training budgets, the strongest ID-OOD trade-off comes from brief SFT, larger RL allocations, and asymmetric adaptation capacity across stages.