Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40290144›Full record

ReviewACS central science2025

Leveraging Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models for Accelerating Chemical Research.

Feifei Luo, Jinglang Zhang, Qilong Wang, Chunpeng Yang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ACS central science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Feifei LuoTianjin Key Laboratory of Advanced Carbon and Electrochemical Energy Storage, School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China.
Jinglang ZhangTianjin Key Lab of Machine Learning, College of Intelligence and Computing, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China.
Qilong WangTianjin Key Lab of Machine Learning, College of Intelligence and Computing, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China.
Chunpeng YangTianjin Key Laboratory of Advanced Carbon and Electrochemical Energy Storage, School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7075-3356

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) using large language models (LLMs) such as GPTs has revolutionized various fields. Recently, LLMs have also made inroads in chemical research even for users without expertise in coding. However, applying LLMs directly may lead to "hallucinations", where the model generates unreliable or inaccurate information and is further exacerbated by limited data set and inherent complexity of chemical reports. To counteract this, researchers have suggested prompt engineering, which can convey human ideas formatively and unambiguously to LLMs and simultaneously improve LLMs' reasoning capability. So far, prompt engineering remains underutilized in chemistry, with many chemists barely acquainted with its principle and techniques. In this Outlook, we delve into various prompt engineering techniques and illustrate relevant examples for extensive research from metal-organic frameworks and fast-charging batteries to autonomous experiments. We also elucidate the current limitations of prompt engineering with LLMs such as incomplete or biased outcomes and constraints imposed by closed-source limitations. Although LLM-assisted chemical research is still in its early stages, the application of prompt engineering will significantly enhance accuracy and reliability, thereby accelerating chemical research.

Identifiers

PMID40290144
PMCPMC12022906

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.