Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40766897›Full record

ArticleApplications in plant sciences

Advancing plant metabolic research by using large language models to expand databases and extract labeled data.

Rachel Knapp, Braidon Johnson, Lucas Busta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applications in plant sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Rachel KnappDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry University of Minnesota Duluth Duluth Minnesota USA.
Braidon JohnsonDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry University of Minnesota Duluth Duluth Minnesota USA.
Lucas BustaDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry University of Minnesota Duluth Duluth Minnesota USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0102-9986

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Premise: Recently, plant science has seen transformative advances in scalable data collection for sequence and chemical data. These large datasets, combined with machine learning, have demonstrated that conducting plant metabolic research on large scales yields remarkable insights. A key next step in increasing scale has been revealed with the advent of accessible large language models, which, even in their early stages, can distill structured data from the literature. This brings us closer to creating specialized databases that consolidate virtually all published knowledge on a topic. Methods: Here, we first test different combinations of prompt engineering techniques and language models in the identification of validated enzyme-product pairs. Next, we evaluate the application of automated prompt engineering and retrieval-augmented generation to identify compound-species associations. Finally, we build and determine the accuracy of a multimodal language model-based pipeline that transcribes images of tables into machine-readable formats. Results: When tuned for each specific task, these methods perform with high (80-90%) or modest (50%) accuracies for enzyme-product pair identification and table image transcription, but with lower false-negative rates than previous methods (decreasing from 55% to 40%) for compound-species pair identification. Discussion: We enumerate several suggestions for researchers working with language models, among which is the importance of the user's domain-specific expertise and knowledge.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceplant metabolismstructured data extraction

Identifiers

PMID40766897
PMCPMC12319720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.