ArticleACS omega2025
AI-Powered Workflow for Constructing Organic Materials Databases from the Literature: Integrating Large Language Models.
Article in ACS omega, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We developed an end-to-end workflow to automate the construction of materials science databases from published literature, addressing a traditionally manual, time-intensive, and labor-intensive process. The work systematically evaluates and compares different machine learning (ML) methods to optimize each task. For identifying relevant publications, we tested various ML techniques and concluded that a combination of large language model (LLM)-based embeddings, clustering, and direct LLM queries is most effective. In the subsequent data extraction phase, we employed OpenAI's GPT-4 to extract materials and their properties, achieving accuracy comparable to manually curated data sets. Additionally, we integrated AI/ML methods to automatically generate SMILES from chemical structure images, expanding the workflow's applicability to organic materials. To validate the workflow, we applied it to studying organic donor materials in organic photovoltaic devices and benchmarked its performance against a manually curated data set derived from 503 papers. The results demonstrate the workflow's efficiency and accuracy. Finally, based on our findings, we provide recommendations for selecting the best ML methods for each task and propose further improvements for the future tool development. This workflow represents a major advancement in accelerating the development of materials science databases and enables data science applications in a broader range of research topics that were historically infeasible due to the lack of available data sets.
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.