ArticleEnvironmental evidence2026
Assessing the effectiveness of ontology-grounded AI term extraction using OntoGPT for environmental evidence synthesis.
Article in Environmental evidence, 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.
- A text mining and ontology-based approach using phenotypes to obtain relevant literature for rare diseases.iScience · 2026Article
- Automation is not evidence of efficiency.Environmental evidence · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence syntheses are valuable sources of robust and transparent knowledge that can identify gaps in research and inform evidence-based decision making. However, the process of synthesis is time consuming and costly. We investigate a new AI-based method that uses a large-language model (LLM) grounded in ontologies (i.e. structured machine-interpretable glossaries of domain terminology) to extract information from a set of 80 articles on coastal wetland restoration outcomes. We evaluated this method by comparing human-extracted data with data extracted by OntoGPT — a Python package that combines an LLM with ontologies to extract structured information. We found that OntoGPT achieved 65% average agreement with human reviewers but varied based on information type requested for extraction. The highest agreement scores were found when extracting standardized information, and lower agreement scores were found for study-specific and interpretation-heavy information. Precision and recall — two common measurements of artificial intelligence performance — were 58% and 57%. Our results highlight the potential for LLMs to save some labour in the evidence synthesis process but highlight core challenges (e.g., complex information; subjective judgments) where further development is needed. While LLMs cannot replace human reviewers, they have the potential to assist in data extraction.
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.