ArticleGigaScience2026
Toward total recall: Enhancing data FAIRness through AI-driven metadata standardization.
Article in GigaScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanistic Insights into Wildlife Cancer and Conservation Strategies Under the One Health Framework.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Large-scale manual curation and harmonization of metadata from metagenomic and cancer genomic repositories: challenges and solutions.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2026Article
- AI in biocuration: challenges, opportunities, and a roadmap for sustainable integration.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Knowledge Engineering for Open Science: Building and Deploying Knowledge Bases for Metadata Standards.AI magazine · 2026Article
- NeuroFAIR curator: an AI-assisted framework for metadata enrichment, quality screening, curation prioritization, and FAIR readiness of brain tumor MRI data.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scientific metadata often suffer from incompleteness, inconsistency, and formatting errors, which hinder effective discovery and reuse of the associated datasets. We present a method that combines Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) with structured metadata templates from the Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval (CEDAR) knowledge base to automatically standardize metadata and to ensure compliance with established standards. A CEDAR template specifies the expected fields of a metadata submission and their permissible values. Our standardization process involves using CEDAR templates to guide the GPT-4 in accurately correcting and refining metadata entries in bulk, resulting in significant improvements in metadata retrieval performance, especially in recall-the proportion of relevant datasets retrieved from the total relevant datasets available. Using the BioSample and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) repositories maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), we demonstrate that retrieval of datasets whose metadata are altered by GPT-4 when provided with CEDAR templates (GPT-4+CEDAR) is substantially better than retrieval of datasets whose metadata are in their original state and that of datasets whose metadata are altered using GPT-4 with only data-dictionary guidance (GPT-4+DD). The average recall increases dramatically, from 17.65% with baseline raw metadata to 62.87% with GPT-4+CEDAR. Furthermore, we evaluate the robustness of our approach by comparing GPT-4 against other large language models, including LLaMA-3 and MedLLaMA2, demonstrating consistent performance advantages for GPT-4+CEDAR. These results underscore the transformative potential of combining advanced language models with symbolic models of standardized metadata structures for more effective and reliable data retrieval, thus accelerating scientific discoveries and data-driven research.
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.