Accelerating metadata annotation in collaborative research centers: A hybrid AI workflow for biomedical entities

Clicks: 20
ID: 329526
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #87 of 173 articles by views in Bioinformatics advances

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 173 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract 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.
Reference Key
openalex_W7214101183 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Manuel Watter, Felix Engel, Aref Kalantari, Claudia Giuliani, Karin Schuller, Claus-Werner Franzke, Markus Sperandio, Harald Binder, Klaus Kaier
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Bioinformatics advances
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/bioadv/vbag283
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/bioadv/vbag283
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.