ProtoCode: Leveraging large language models (LLMs) for automated generation of machine-readable PCR protocols from scientific publications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protocol standardization and sharing are crucial for reproducibility in life sciences. In spite of numerous efforts for standardized protocol description, adherence to these standards in literature remains largely inconsistent. Curation of protocols are especially challenging due to the labor intensive process, requiring expert domain knowledge of each experimental procedure. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising solution to interpret and curate knowledge from complex scientific literature. In this work, we develop ProtoCode, a tool leveraging fine-tune LLMs to curate protocols into intermediate representation formats which can be interpretable by both human and machine interfaces. Our proof-of-concept, focused on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) protocols, retrieves information from PCR protocols at an accuracy ranging 69-100 % depending on the information content. In all tested protocols, we demonstrate that ProtoCode successfully converts literature-based protocols into correct operational files for multiple thermal cycler systems. In conclusion, ProtoCode can alleviate labor intensive curation and standardization of life science protocols to enhance research reproducibility by providing a reliable, automated means to process and standardize protocols. ProtoCode is freely available as a web server at https://curation.taxila.io/ProtoCode/.
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 | 0.022 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.015 |
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".