ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2026
Automated Large-Scale Extraction of Nanotoxicity Data from the Literature Using Multimodal Large Language Models.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Manual curation of nanotoxicity data remains a major bottleneck in the scalable construction of large datasets because key physicochemical and toxicological variables are often distributed across text, figures, tables, captions, legends, and Materials and Methods sections. Here, we developed a multimodal large language model (LLM) workflow for automated extraction and structured curation of nanotoxicity data from research articles. Four multimodal LLMs were benchmarked on curated set of 17 oxide nanotoxicity articles. GPT-5.4 provided the best balance between extraction accuracy and efficiency, achieving a mean extraction F1 score of 96.1% and an assay results F1 score of 86.5% on the main benchmark. The optimized workflow was then applied to 821 articles, generating 16,786 structured records and substantially reducing the manual recovery of figure-derived quantitative data. Automated machine learning (AutoML) modeling showed that the physicochemical (PChem) score-filtered subset achieved higher overall predictive performance, whereas record-count balancing among the 4 most represented materials reduced performance. Models trained only on records for ZnO, TiO
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.