ArticleScientific reports2026
The development and evaluation of agricultural question-answering systems based on large language models.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) show superior performance in different fields. However, the applications of these models, which have shown superior performance in many studies, are still limited and incomplete in agriculture. In this study, a comprehensive evaluation has been made the use of LLMs in the field of agriculture. A set of multiple-choice questions was developed, covering three topics (General, Horticulture, Crop Production) and three difficulty levels (Easy, Medium, Difficult). For each question, answers were generated using GPT-4o and Gemini-2.0-flash LLMs. Zero-Shot, Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Self-Consistency, and Tree-of-Thought (ToT) techniques were preferred as prompt strategies. An automatically optimized prompting pipeline was also applied using Automatic Prompt Engineering (APE) to improve reasoning ability in agricultural question answering. Furthermore, the effect of the prompt methods used on both the accuracy and consistency of the answers was examined. In this study applied in the field of agriculture, the general success of question-answering systems (QAs) was evaluated and the effect of optimized prompts on system success was examined. The findings revealed that LLMs were generally successful, but their results varied significantly depending on the preferred LLM and prompt strategy. The results obtained were analyzed in detail statistically using bootstrap confidence intervals, paired t-tests, ANOVA, and effect size measures (Cohen's h and d) within the scope of the LLM model, prompt method, difficulty levels, and category-based format. This study introduces one of the first domain-specific question answering systems powered by LLMs, tailored for agricultural experts such as engineers and technicians, and presents an innovative approach by creating an infrastructure for smart digital applications in the field of agriculture.
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.