Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Collaborative Research Centers rely on FAIR-compliant, richly structured metadata, yet manual annotation is a major bottleneck. We implemented a search-augmented large language model (LLM) workflow within a local research data management system to pre-annotate biomedical entities, using human-in-the-loop verification to ensure data quality. Methods The pipeline uses Gemini 3 Pro in a two-step prompting strategy: (1) identify dataset deposits and stable identifiers in articles converted to Markdown; (2) extract structured fields from curated repository landing pages rendered via a headless browser. To handle a highly hierarchical metadata schema, we flattened the schema for prompting and remapped outputs to strict JSON with granular provenance tags. Authors received pre-filled metadata and could accept, edit, or delete entries (TP, FP, FN mapping). Performance metrics (precision, recall, F1) were estimated as proportions and synthesized via random-effects meta-analysis. Results Among 51 screened articles, the LLM identified a repository deposit in 31; authors responded for 17 (55% of articles with an identified deposit; 33% of all screened articles), yielding 39 verified datasets. False positives were rare (mean 0.23) and false negatives low (mean 1.46). Precision was consistently high at 99.65% (95% CI 98.42%–100.00%). Recall showed more variability at 93.75% (95% CI 89.79%–96.96%), and the F1 score reached 96.17% (95% CI 93.78%–98.11%). Conclusions The hybrid workflow achieved high author-verified precision with moderate recall, shifting effort from drafting to reviewing while maintaining schema compliance. As these metrics rely on author acceptance and response rates were modest, broader, multi-site validation is needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Watter et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: