ArticlePloS one2026
Utilizing large language models to construct a dataset of Württemberg's 19th-century fauna from historical records.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Constructing datasets on past biodiversity from historical sources is crucial for understanding long-term ecological changes. Typically, compiling such datasets relies on prior knowledge of the sources' composition and requires considerable manual effort. To overcome these challenges, we implement an automated approach based on prompted large language models (LLMs) to detect mentions of species in texts from 19th-century Württemberg and link these mentions to identifiers in the GBIF database. Based on our evaluation, we find that LLMs can reliably identify species in the texts with high recall (92.6%) and precision (95.3%), while providing estimates of the correct species identifier with considerable accuracy (83.0%). As our approach is easily scalable and adaptable to other contexts and languages, it offers a promising way to advance dataset generation from historical material using limited resources.
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.