Automated Category and Trend Analysis of Scientific Articles on Ophthalmology Using Large Language Models: Development and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this paper, we present an automated method for article classification, leveraging the power of large language models (LLMs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the applicability of various LLMs based on textual content of scientific ophthalmology papers. METHODS: We developed a model based on natural language processing techniques, including advanced LLMs, to process and analyze the textual content of scientific papers. Specifically, we used zero-shot learning LLMs and compared Bidirectional and Auto-Regressive Transformers (BART) and its variants with Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) and its variants, such as distilBERT, SciBERT, PubmedBERT, and BioBERT. To evaluate the LLMs, we compiled a data set (retinal diseases [RenD] ) of 1000 ocular disease-related articles, which were expertly annotated by a panel of 6 specialists into 19 distinct categories. In addition to the classification of articles, we also performed analysis on different classified groups to find the patterns and trends in the field. RESULTS: -score of 0.85 based on the RenD data set. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed framework achieves notable improvements in both accuracy and efficiency. Its application in the domain of ophthalmology showcases its potential for knowledge organization and retrieval. We performed a trend analysis that enables researchers and clinicians to easily categorize and retrieve relevant papers, saving time and effort in literature review and information gathering as well as identification of emerging scientific trends within different disciplines. Moreover, the extendibility of the model to other scientific fields broadens its impact in facilitating research and trend analysis across diverse disciplines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".