ArticleFrontiers in neuroinformatics2025
Large language models can extract metadata for annotation of human neuroimaging publications.
Article in Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of large language models to the annotation of cell lines and mouse strains in genomics data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Application of large language models to the annotation of cell lines and mouse strains in genomics data.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2026Article
- Identifying Biomedical Entities for Datasets in Scientific Articles: 4-Step Cache-Augmented Generation Approach Using GPT-4o and PubTator 3.0.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Developing an integrated brain resource framework for translational neuroscience in Korea Brain Bank.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We show that recent (mid-to-late 2024) commercial large language models (LLMs) are capable of good quality metadata extraction and annotation with very little work on the part of investigators for several exemplar real-world annotation tasks in the neuroimaging literature. We investigated the GPT-4o LLM from OpenAI which performed comparably with several groups of specially trained and supervised human annotators. The LLM achieves similar performance to humans, between 0.91 and 0.97 on zero-shot prompts without feedback to the LLM. Reviewing the disagreements between LLM and gold standard human annotations we note that actual LLM errors are comparable to human errors in most cases, and in many cases these disagreements are not errors. Based on the specific types of annotations we tested, with exceptionally reviewed gold-standard correct values, the LLM performance is usable for metadata annotation at scale. We encourage other research groups to develop and make available more specialized "micro-benchmarks," like the ones we provide here, for testing both LLMs, and more complex agent systems annotation performance in real-world metadata annotation tasks.
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.