Large Language Models Can Extract Metadata for Annotation of Human Neuroimaging Publications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We show that recent (mid-to-late 2024) commercial large language models (LLMs) are capable of good quality metadata extraction and annotation with very little work on the part of investigators for several exemplar real-world annotation tasks in the neuroimaging literature. We investigated the GPT-4o LLM from OpenAI which performed comparably with several groups of specially trained and supervised human annotators. The LLM achieves similar performance to humans, between 0.91 and 0.97 on zero-shot prompts without feedback to the LLM. Reviewing the disagreements between LLM and gold standard human annotations we note that actual LLM errors are comparable to human errors in most cases, and in many cases these disagreements are not errors. Based on the specific types of annotations we tested, with exceptionally reviewed gold-standard correct values, the LLM performance is usable for metadata annotation at scale. We encourage other research groups to develop and make available more specialized "micro-benchmarks," like the ones we provide here, for testing both LLMs, and more complex agent systems annotation performance in real-world metadata annotation tasks.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".