ArticlePloS one2025
Prompting large language models to extract chemical‒disease relation precisely and comprehensively at the document level: an evaluation study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- GeneReL: a large language model-powered platform for gene regulatory relationship extraction with community curation.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the scarcity of annotated data, current deep learning methods face challenges in the field of document-level chemical-disease relation extraction, making it difficult to achieve precise relation extraction capable of identifying relation types and comprehensive extraction tasks that identify relation-related factors. This study tests the abilities of three large language models (LLMs), GPT3.5, GPT4.0, and Claude-opus, to perform precise and comprehensive extraction in document-level chemical-disease relation extraction on a self-constructed dataset. Firstly, based on the task characteristics, this study designs six workflows for precise extraction and five workflows for comprehensive extraction using prompting engineering strategies. The characteristics of the extraction process are analyzed through the performance differences under different workflows. Secondly, this study analyzes the content bias in LLMs extraction by examining the extraction effectiveness of different workflows on different types of content. Finally, this study analyzes the error characteristics of extracting incorrect examples by the LLMs. The experimental results show that: (1) The LLMs demonstrate good extraction capabilities, achieving the highest F1 scores of 87% and 73% respectively in the tasks of precise extraction and comprehensive extraction; (2) In the extraction process, the LLMs exhibit a certain degree of stubbornness, with limited effectiveness of prompting engineering strategies; (3) In terms of extraction content, the LLMs show a content bias, with stronger abilities to identify positive relations such as induction and acceleration; (4) The essence of extraction errors lies in the LLMs' misunderstanding of the implicit meanings in biomedical texts. This study provides practical workflows for precise and comprehensive extraction of document-level chemical-disease relations and also indicates that optimizing training data is the key to building more efficient and accurate extraction methods in the future.
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.