ArticleScientific reports2026
Automated identification of contextually relevant biomedical entities with grounded LLMs.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the effectiveness of different large language models for automated biomedical entity annotation in research articles with a focus on contextualized and grounded results. A 4-step generative workflow iteratively generates and refines entity candidates by considering a metadata schema for context and agentic tool use for validation with the PubTator 3 data base. The precision of this flow was assessed with a random effects meta-analysis after face-to-face interviews with authors of six papers from the Collaborative Research Center (CRC) 1453 “NephGen”. With an overall precision of 91.3%, the selected models provide qualitatively valuable annotations, with models GPT-4.1, GPT-4o Mini, and Gemini 2.0 Flash showing the highest precision. While GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash excelled in the total number of correct annotations, GPT-4o Mini and Gemini 2.0 Flash were fastest and most cost-effective. Large variations in annotation count and the conflation of publication and dataset-specific annotations highlight that human review ("human-in-the-loop") is still important. The results further highlight the trade-offs between precision, total number of correct annotations, cost, and speed. While quality is paramount in collaborative research settings, cost-effectiveness could be more critical in public implementations.
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.