ArticleBiodiversity data journal2026
Automated information extraction from plant specimen labels using OCR and large language models.
Article in Biodiversity data journal, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The digitization of herbarium specimens is crucial for advancing biodiversity research and data sharing. However, this process is often hindered by the inefficiency of manual transcription and the technical challenges posed by the massive volume of specimens, heterogeneous label layouts, and the prevalence of handwritten texts. To overcome these bottlenecks, this study proposed an automated pipeline that integrates the PadddleOCR engine with the DeepSeek large language model (LLM) for structured information extraction from specimen labels. The pipeline is designed to extract 16 key metadata fields from both printed and handwritten labels. Evaluated on a benchmark dataset, it achieved a high field-level accuracy of 95.4% for printed labels, demonstrating strong reliability. For handwritten labels, the system maintained functionality while correctly identifying its limitations through a confidence-based quality control mechanism. A key finding was the compensatory role of the LLM, which effectively corrected upstream OCR errors, as evidenced by a weak correlation (
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.