ArticleScientific reports2026
Expert assignment system based on natural language processing for Marie Sklodowska-Curie actions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
Abstract
Assigning experts to project proposals is a critical process in research evaluation. Traditional Information Retrieval (IR) methods, such as the Single Evaluation Platform (SEP) used by the European Research Executive Agency, automatically assign experts based on keyword matching, but these assignments are subsequently reviewed and corrected by Vice Chairs (VCs) to ensure suitability. To address the limitations of keyword-based systems and enhance semantic relevance, we developed a novel expert assignment system leveraging Natural Language Processing with Large Language Models (LLMs). Our approach integrates dynamic retrieval of expert publications via ORCID with GALACTICA, a specialized scientific LLM, to compute fine-grained semantic similarity between publications and proposal abstracts. Using a dataset of 48 experts and 181 proposals, we evaluated three similarity aggregation strategies: Sum, Product, and Maximum. The Maximum similarity approach most closely replicated VCs-reviewed assignments, achieving an AUC of 0.82, significantly outperforming the traditional SEP system (AUC = 0.75), Sum (AUC = 0.69), and Product (AUC = 0.57). These results demonstrate that focusing on the single most relevant match effectively captures human decision-making, highlighting the potential of LLM-based semantic matching to provide a more accurate and scalable alternative to existing IR systems. Furthermore, unlike SEP's discrete affinity scores, our aggregation strategies produce highly discriminative, fine-grained ratings, allowing for more nuanced differentiation among candidate experts.
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.