The state of biological AI at a glance — which models drive the most academic impact and developer adoption, and how open the field actually is. Across 710 models, with 710 evaluated against the Model Openness Framework.
The biggest and most-cited models — colored by openness so you can see whether scale and openness go together.
How model scale relates to academic citations (log-log). Showing 135 models with both metrics.
Academic impact by citation count
| # | Model | Citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 36.3K | |
| 2 | 11.2K | |
| 3 | 4.7K | |
| 4 | 3.4K | |
| 5 | 3.1K | |
| 6 | 2.8K | |
| 7 | 2.3K | |
| 8 | 1.8K | |
| 9 | 1.8K | |
| 10 | 1.6K |
Developer adoption by GitHub stars
| # | Model | Stars |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15K | |
| 2 | 14.7K | |
| 3 | 14.7K | |
| 4 | 8.2K | |
| 5 | 4.5K | |
| 6 | 4.3K | |
| 7 | 4.1K | |
| 8 | 4.1K | |
| 9 | 4.1K | |
| 10 | 4K |
MOF's pass/fail tiers leave most models unclassified, so the bio.rodeo openness score rates them on a 0–100 gradient — split into usability (can I run it?) and reproducibility (can I retrain it?). These views show that gradient, the trend over time, where models fall short, the licenses in play, and how openness relates to impact.
Each dot is a model; color is its bio.rodeo openness band. Below the diagonal: easier to run than to retrain (open weights, closed recipe); above it: more reproducible than usable. Showing 710 evaluated models.
Top models by bio.rodeo openness score (usability + reproducibility, license-aware).
| # | Model | Use | Repro | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 2 | Chan Zuckerberg Initiative | 99 | 100 | 100 |
| 3 | Chan Zuckerberg Biohub / Mehta Lab | 100 | 95 | 98 |
| 4 | MIT | 100 | 95 | 97 |
| 5 | Broad Institute / Dana-Farber Cancer Institute | 100 | 93 | 96 |
| 6 | Chan Zuckerberg Initiative | 100 | 92 | 96 |
| 7 | Chan Zuckerberg Initiative | 100 | 92 | 96 |
| 8 | Aikium | 99 | 92 | 96 |
| 9 | Shanghai AI Laboratory | 100 | 95 | 95 |
| 10 | Chan Zuckerberg Initiative | 100 | 92 | 95 |
Evaluated models by release year and overall openness tier (open / partial / closed)
Share of models that release each MOF component openly, grouped by pillar — where the field falls short
Median citations for models that release a component openly vs. not, sorted by the size of the gap
Most common licenses across released components, colored by whether they are open
Openness and impact broken down by biological domain and by organization, plus the field's growth in scale over time.
Models per biological domain, split into open (Class III+) and not open
By total citation count
How model scale has grown over time, colored by bio.rodeo openness score. Bubble size reflects citation count where available. Showing 178 models.