Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40056431›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2025

Pipeline to explore information on genome editing using large language models and genome editing meta-database.

Takayuki Suzuki, Hidemasa Bono

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Takayuki SuzukiGraduate School of Integrated Sciences for Life, Hiroshima University, 3-10-23 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima 739-0046, Japan.
Hidemasa BonoGraduate School of Integrated Sciences for Life, Hiroshima University, 3-10-23 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima 739-0046, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-4413-0651

Funding

Program on Open Innovation Platform with Enterprises, Research Institute and Academia JPMJPF2010University Fellowship Creation Project for Creating Scientific and Technological Innovation JPMJFS2129
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome editing (GE) is widely recognized as an effective and valuable technology in life sciences research. However, certain genes are difficult to edit depending on some factors such as the type of species, sequences, and GE tools. Therefore, confirming the presence or absence of GE practices in previous publications is crucial for the effective designing and establishment of research using GE. Although the Genome Editing Meta-database (GEM: https://bonohu.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/gem/) aims to provide as comprehensive GE information as possible, it does not indicate how each registered gene is involved in GE. In this study, we developed a systematic method for extracting essential GE information using large language models from the information based on GEM and GE-related articles. This approach allows for a systematic and efficient investigation of GE information that cannot be achieved using the current GEM alone. In addition, by converting the extracted GE information into metrics, we propose a potential application of this method to prioritize genes for future research. The extracted GE information and novel GE-related scores are expected to facilitate the efficient selection of target genes for GE and support the design of research using GE. Database URLs:  https://github.com/szktkyk/extract_geinfo, https://github.com/szktkyk/visualize_geinfo.

Indexed as

Databases, GeneticGene EditingProgramming LanguagesAnimalsHumansLarge Language Models

Identifiers

PMID40056431
PMCPMC11890094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.