The proficiency of ChatGPT-4o, 3.5 Sonnet, and 3 Opus in processing three pdf papers while addressing complex bioprocess engineering prompts, and forecasting values was apparent in the average manuscript author's score of 8.9 across four conditions as depicted in Table . The top performing model across 3 sets of prompts was ChatGPT-4o, which typically delivered the most complete and convincing answers, but did not satisfy one of the conditions in citing original author numerical values in quotes. 3.5 Sonnet's answers tended to have shorter explanations using bullet points, while 3 Opus returned longer paragraphs that were less persuasive than ChatGPT-4o's answers. As top model o1-preview in this study does not currently have document retrieval capabilities, the three models in this section were primarily limited in their ability to answer prompts in full due to less sophisticated software architectures likely running on hardware with lower specifications than o1-preview.