ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025
Annotation of biological samples data to standard ontologies with support from large language models.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating cross-omics research through FAIR Digital Objects with DataPLANT.Journal of integrative bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Application of large language models to the annotation of cell lines and mouse strains in genomics data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Application of large language models to the annotation of cell lines and mouse strains in genomics data.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in Bio-Ontology Research: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The semantic integration of biological data is hindered by the vast heterogeneity of data sources and their limited semantic formalization. A crucial step in this process is mapping data elements to ontological concepts, which typically involves substantial manual effort. Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in automating complex language-related tasks and may offer a solution to streamline biological data annotation. This study investigates the utility of LLMs-specifically various base and fine-tuned GPT models-for the automatic assignment of ontological identifiers to biological sample labels. We evaluated model performance in annotating labels to four widely used ontologies: the Cell Line Ontology (CLO), Cell Ontology (CL), Uber-anatomy Ontology (UBERON), and BRENDA Tissue Ontology (BTO). Our dataset was compiled from publicly available, high-quality databases containing biologically relevant sequence information, which suffers from inconsistent annotation practices, complicating integrative analyses. Model outputs were compared against annotations generated by text2term, a state-of-the-art annotation tool. The fine-tuned GPT model outperformed both the base models and text2term in annotating cell lines and cell types, particularly for the CL and UBERON ontologies, achieving a precision of 47-64% and a recall of 88-97%. In contrast, base models exhibited significantly lower performance. These results suggest that fine-tuned LLMs can accelerate and improve the accuracy of biological data annotation. Nonetheless, our evaluation highlights persistent challenges, including variable precision across ontology categories and the continued need for expert curation to ensure annotation validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.