ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024
Automating literature screening and curation with applications to computational neuroscience.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- All Models are Wrong, Some are Annotated: Automating Metadata in Biomedical Repositories.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Large Language Models and Machine Learning Framework for Predicting Dental Ceramics Performance.International dental journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveModelDB (https://modeldb.science) is a discovery platform for computational neuroscience, containing over 1850 published model codes with standardized metadata. These codes were mainly supplied from unsolicited model author submissions, but this approach is inherently limited. For example, we estimate we have captured only around one-third of NEURON models, the most common type of models in ModelDB. To more completely characterize the state of computational neuroscience modeling work, we aim to identify works containing results derived from computational neuroscience approaches and their standardized associated metadata (eg, cell types, research topics). MATERIALS AND
methodsKnown computational neuroscience work from ModelDB and identified neuroscience work queried from PubMed were included in our study. After pre-screening with SPECTER2 (a free document embedding method), GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 were used to identify likely computational neuroscience work and relevant metadata.
resultsSPECTER2, GPT-4, and GPT-3.5 demonstrated varied but high abilities in identification of computational neuroscience work. GPT-4 achieved 96.9% accuracy and GPT-3.5 improved from 54.2% to 85.5% through instruction-tuning and Chain of Thought. GPT-4 also showed high potential in identifying relevant metadata annotations. DISCUSSION: Accuracy in identification and extraction might further be improved by dealing with ambiguity of what are computational elements, including more information from papers (eg, Methods section), improving prompts, etc.
conclusionNatural language processing and large language model techniques can be added to ModelDB to facilitate further model discovery, and will contribute to a more standardized and comprehensive framework for establishing domain-specific resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.