SynthesisBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026
Microbial named entity recognition and normalisation for AI-assisted literature review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationManual curation of biomedical literature is slow and error-prone and while large language models trained on general texts have shown to be useful for text summarisation, these methods lack the domain-specific expertise required to perform this task accurately. Here we describe the creation of the first microbiome-specific text corpus, use this to train deep learning algorithms for named-entity recognition (NER) and entity linking (EL), and demonstrate their use to meta-analyse microbiome literature.
resultsThe training and validation set (n = 1410) contained a total of 90 150 annotations (both long form and abbreviations). Using the gold-standard test set (n = 288), with an inter-annotator agreement rate of 99.52% for NER and 88.31% for EL, the trained models were evaluated and our fine-tuned BioBERT model achieved an F1-score of 96% for NER surpassing a rule- and dictionary-based annotation pipeline (94%). For EL the accuracy obtained by the deep learning models greatly surpassed that of the pipeline (91% vs 69%). Evaluated across the entire available literature (n = 6927) across 14 domains, our models annotate an entire full-text document in only 7 seconds. AVAILABILITY: All codes are available for automatic annotation and model training, with instructions on how to deploy the model on new text, from GitHub at https://github.com/omicsNLP/microbELP and Zenodo at https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20613467. The redistributable, annotated training set and unannotated test set are made available from Zenodo at https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17305410 with the redistributable, human-labelled test set hosted as benchmark on Codabench at https://www.codabench.org/competitions/10913/ (for NER only) and at https://www.codabench.org/competitions/11581/ (for NER+EL) for evaluation. The annotated documents for all available literature are hosted separately on Zenodo at https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17288826.
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.