ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Identifying Biomedical Entities for Datasets in Scientific Articles: 4-Step Cache-Augmented Generation Approach Using GPT-4o and PubTator 3.0.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. 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.
- From manual entry to machine precision: challenges and evolution of metadata schema development in collaborative research centers.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Automated identification of contextually relevant biomedical entities with grounded LLMs.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Identification of biomedical entities from multiple repositories using a specialized metadata schema and search-augmented large language models.BMC research notes · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The accurate extraction of biomedical entities in scientific articles is essential for effective metadata annotation of research datasets, ensuring data findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability in collaborative research. Objective: This study aimed to introduce a novel 4-step cache-augmented generation approach to identify biomedical entities for an automated metadata annotation of datasets, leveraging GPT-4o and PubTator 3.0. Methods: The method integrates four steps: (1) generation of candidate entities using GPT-4o, (2) validation via PubTator 3.0, (3) term extraction based on a metadata schema developed for the specific research area, and (4) a combined evaluation of PubTator-validated and schema-related terms. Applied to 23 articles published in the context of the Collaborative Research Center OncoEscape, the process was validated through supervised, face-to-face interviews with article authors, allowing an assessment of annotation precision using random-effects meta-analysis. Results: The approach yielded a mean of 19.6 schema-related and 6.7 PubTator-validated biomedical entities per article. Within the study's specific context, the overall annotation precision was 98% (95% CI 94%-100%), with most prediction errors concentrated in articles outside the primary basic research domain of the schema. In a subsample (n=20), available supplemental material was included in the prediction process, but it did not improve precision (98%, 95% CI 95%-100%). Moreover, the mean number of schema-related entities was 20.1 (P=.56) and the mean number of PubTator-validated entities was 6.7 (P=.68); these values did not increase with the additional information provided in the supplement. Conclusions: This study highlights the potential of large language model-supported metadata annotation. The findings underscore the practical feasibility of full-text analysis and suggest its potential for integration into routine workflows for biomedical metadata generation.
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.