Cited by 24Topic ModelingBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesComputational and Text Analysis Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Large language models help facilitate the automated synthesis of information on potential pest controllers

Open access
Scheepens, Daan, Millard, Joseph, Farrell, Maxwell, Newbold, Tim·2024·Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The body of ecological literature, which informs much of our knowledge of the global loss of biodiversity, has been experiencing rapid growth in recent decades. The increasing difficulty of synthesising this literature manually has simultaneously resulted in a growing demand for automated text mining methods. Within the domain of deep learning, large language models (LLMs) have been the subject of considerable attention in recent years due to great leaps in progress and a wide range of potential applications; however, quantitative investigation into their potential in ecology has so far been lacking. In this work, we analyse the ability of GPT‐4 to extract information about invertebrate pests and pest controllers from abstracts of articles on biological pest control, using a bespoke, zero‐shot prompt. Our results show that the performance of GPT‐4 is highly competitive with other state‐of‐the‐art tools used for taxonomic named entity recognition and geographic location extraction tasks. On a held‐out test set, we show that species and geographic locations are extracted with F1‐scores of 99.8% and 95.3%, respectively, and highlight that the model can effectively distinguish between ecological roles of interest such as predators, parasitoids and pests. Moreover, we demonstrate the model's ability to effectively extract and predict taxonomic information across various taxonomic ranks. However, we do report a small number of cases of fabricated information (confabulations). Due to a lack of specialised, pre‐trained ecological language models, general‐purpose LLMs may provide a promising way forward in ecology. Combined with tailored prompt engineering, such models can be employed for a wide range of text mining tasks in ecology, with the potential to greatly reduce time spent on manual screening and labelling of the literature.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/2041-210x.14341

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. 10.3897/BDJ.10.e89481 · DOI
  2. 10.1186/1471‐2105‐13‐211 · DOI
  3. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296 · DOI
  4. 10.1177/0894439309332293 · DOI
  5. 10.1002/fee.2320 · DOI
  6. 10.1186/s13054‐023‐04393‐x · DOI
  7. 10.1111/gcb.12043 · DOI
  8. 10.12688/f1000research.2‐191.v1 · DOI
  9. Chen Q. Sun H. Liu H. Jiang Y. Ran T. Jin X. Xiao X. Lin Z. Niu Z. &Chen H.(2023).A comprehensive benchmark study on biomedical text generation and mining with ChatGPT.bioRxivhttps://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.19.537463 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/geb.13219 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/ecog.06068 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/geb.12729 · DOI
  13. 10.1098/rspb.2021.2721 · DOI
  14. 10.1186/1471‐2105‐11‐85 · DOI
  15. 10.3389/fenvs.2021.643847 · DOI
  16. 10.1002/ece3.2579 · DOI
  17. IPCC, 2023, Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 35
  18. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007323 · DOI
  19. 10.1002/ece3.6368 · DOI
  20. Laskar M. T. R. Bari M. S. Rahman M. Bhuiyan M. A. H. Joty S. &Huang J. X.(2023).A systematic study and comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT on benchmark datasets. · DOI
  21. 10.1111/2041‐210X.13778 · DOI
  22. 10.1002/9781118295205.ch18 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/bs.aecr.2019.02.003 · DOI
  24. 10.1111/ecog.04532 · DOI
  25. 10.3897/BDJ.7.e29626 · DOI
  26. 10.1038/ncomms10122 · DOI
  27. OpenAI. (2023a).GPT‐4 technical report.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Ouyang L., 2022, Advances in neural information processing systems, 27730
  29. 10.1109/TKDE.2009.191 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.3897/BDJ.2.e1079 · DOI
  31. 10.1007/BF00170675 · DOI
  32. 10.1073/pnas.2023989118 · DOI
  33. 10.1186/s40537‐016‐0043‐6 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1016/j.agee.2012.06.020 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Scheepens, D., Millard, J., Farrell, M., & Newbold, T.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Natural History Museum (GB)
  • MRC University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research (GB)
Corresponding author
Scheepens, Daan
Venue
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-05-20
Volume
15
Issue
7
Pages
1261-1273
ISSN
2041-210X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4398175190
Cited by
24
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5
FWCI
3.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Methods in Ecology and Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (178836)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
Keywords
large language models, GPT-4, biological control, invertebrate pests, named entity recognition, confabulation, predators and parasitoids, biodiversity loss, literature synthesis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review