ArticleGigaScience2026
Enhanced semantic classification of microbiome sample origins using large language models (LLMs).
Article in GigaScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- CCMRI: a classification and curated database of climate change-related microbiome studies.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- LLM-Assessed Relatedness of Microbiome Study Descriptions Aligns more Strongly with Functional than with Taxonomic Profile Similarity.Microbial ecology · 2026Article
- Metalog: curated and harmonised contextual data for global metagenomics samples.Nucleic acids research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOver the past decade, central sequence repositories have expanded significantly in size. This vast accumulation of data holds value and enables further studies, provided that the data entries are well annotated. However, the submitter-provided metadata of sequencing records can be of heterogeneous quality, presenting significant challenges for re-use. Here, we test to what extent large language models (LLMs) can be used to cost-effectively automate the re-annotation of sequencing records against a simplified classification scheme of broad ecological environments with relevance to microbiome studies, without fine-tuning. This effort directly contributes to improving the FAIRness-findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability-of microbiome sequencing metadata, thereby enhancing their "AI readiness" for downstream computational analyses.
resultsWe focused on sequencing samples taken from the environment, for which metadata is important. We employed OpenAI Generative Pre-trained Transformer models, and assessed scalability, time- and cost-effectiveness, as well as performance against a diverse, hand-curated benchmark with 1,000 examples that span a wide range of complexity in metadata interpretation. Annotation performance markedly outperformed that of a baseline, manually curated, non-ML keyword-based approach. Changing models (or model parameters) has only minor effects on performance, but prompts need to be carefully designed to match the task. Furthermore, when we compared proprietary OpenAI models with open-weight alternatives (e.g., Qwen, meta-Llama, and Microsoft-Phi-4), we found comparable accuracy for both biome and sub-biome classification, indicating that open-weight architectures can match the performance of proprietary models for large-scale ecological metadata re-annotation. We validated the pipeline with 1,000 hand-curated samples, and we applied the optimized pipeline to 2 million sequencing records from the environment, providing coarse-grained yet standardized sample origin annotations covering the globe.
conclusionsOur work demonstrates the effective use of LLMs to simplify and standardize annotation from complex biological metadata.
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.