ArticleBMC research notes2026
Identification of biomedical entities from multiple repositories using a specialized metadata schema and search-augmented large language models.
Article in BMC research notes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
objectiveMany biomedical articles reference multiple datasets across different public repositories, complicating accurate metadata capture and downstream re-use. Building on our prior grounded large language model (LLM) workflows for biomedical entity annotation, we extend the approach to identify and annotate all datasets referenced by a paper, even when distributed across repositories, by combining a specialized metadata schema with a three-step, search-augmented prompting strategy.
resultsIn the Transregional Collaborative Research Center PILOT (TRR 359 “Perinatal Development of Immune Cell Topology”), Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) releases are common alongside additional repository deposits. The applied approach reliably detected datasets referenced in articles and produced schema-compliant annotations using information available on the repository landing pages. After validation through structured face-to-face interviews with the article’s senior author, Gemini 2.5 Pro achieved higher precision (97.1%) than GPT-4.1 (81.9%, p < 0.001) and Claude Sonnet 4 (88.6%, p < 0.001). Limiting the annotation to the information available in the repositories achieved higher precision than adding information from the article (919% vs. 88.3% across all LLMs, p = 0.004). These results indicate that simple repository-grounded extraction enables high quality, multi-dataset metadata annotation which has the potential to minimize the time and effort required for manual metadata annotation.
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.