Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39738349›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Information extraction from historical well records using a large language model.

Zhiwei Ma, Javier E Santos, Greg Lackey, Hari Viswanathan, Daniel O'Malley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Zhiwei MaEarth & Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 87544, USA. m.ma@lanl.gov.
Javier E SantosEarth & Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 87544, USA.
Greg LackeyGeological and Environmental Systems Directorate, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA, 15236, USA.
Hari ViswanathanEarth & Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 87544, USA.
Daniel O'MalleyEarth & Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 87544, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To reduce environmental risks and impacts from orphaned wells (abandoned oil and gas wells), it is essential to first locate and then plug these wells. Manual reading and digitizing of information from historical documents is not feasible, given the large number of wells. Here, we propose a new computational approach for rapidly and cost-effectively characterizing these wells. Specifically, we leverage the advanced capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to extract vital information including well location and depth from historical records of orphaned wells. In this paper, we present an information extraction workflow based on open-source Llama 2 models and test it on a dataset of 160 well documents. The developed workflow achieves an overall accuracy of 100%, accounting for both text conversion and LLM analysis when applied to clean, PDF-based reports. However, it struggles with unstructured image-based well records, where accuracy drops to 70%. The workflow provides significant benefits over manual human digitization, because it reduces labor and increases automation. Additionally, more detailed prompting leads to improved information extraction, and LLMs with more parameters typically perform better. Given that a vast amount of geoscientific information is locked up in old documents, this work demonstrates that recent breakthroughs in LLMs allow us to access and utilize this information more effectively.

Identifiers

PMID39738349
PMCPMC11685759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.