ArticleAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)2025
MaTableGPT: GPT-Based Table Data Extractor from Materials Science Literature.
Article in Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany), 2025. 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.
- MaTableGPT: GPT-Based Table Data Extractor from Materials Science Literature.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- OCTOPUS: operation control system for task optimization and job parallelization via a user-optimal scheduler.Nature communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Efficiently extracting data from tables in the scientific literature is pivotal for building large-scale databases. However, the tables reported in materials science papers exist in highly diverse forms; thus, rule-based extractions are an ineffective approach. To overcome this challenge, the study presents MaTableGPT, which is a GPT-based table data extractor from the materials science literature. MaTableGPT features key strategies of table data representation and table splitting for better GPT comprehension and filtering hallucinated information through follow-up questions. When applied to a vast volume of water splitting catalysis literature, MaTableGPT achieves an extraction accuracy (total F1 score) of up to 96.8%. Through comprehensive evaluations of the GPT usage cost, labeling cost, and extraction accuracy for the learning methods of zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuning, the study presents a Pareto-front mapping where the few-shot learning method is found to be the most balanced solution owing to both its high extraction accuracy (total F1 score >95%) and low cost (GPT usage cost of 5.97 US dollars and labeling cost of 10 I/O paired examples). The statistical analyses conducted on the database generated by MaTableGPT revealed valuable insights into the distribution of the overpotential and elemental utilization across the reported catalysts in the water splitting literature.
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.