ArticleApplications in plant sciences
Advancing plant metabolic research by using large language models to expand databases and extract labeled data.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the performance of generative artificial intelligence in retrieving information against manually curated genetic and genomic data.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025Article
- Small language models enable rapid and accurate extraction of structured data from unstructured text: An example with plants and their specialized metabolites.Quantitative plant biology · 2025Article
- Advancing plant metabolic research by using large language models to expand databases and extract labeled data.Applications in plant sciencesArticle
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
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
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.