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 accessPublished 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764
Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence.
Wang, H., Fu, T., Du, Y., Gao, W., Huang, K., Liu, Z., Chandak, P., Liu, S., Van Katwyk, P., Deac, A., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06221-2 · Cited by 1,823
A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production
Dainese, M., Martin, E. A., Aizen, M. A., Albrecht, M., Bartomeus, I., Bommarco, R., Carvalheiro, L. G., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Gagic, V., Garibaldi, L. A., et al. (2019) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax0121 · Cited by 1,070
Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review
Letourneau, D. K., Armbrecht, I., Rivera, B. S., Lerma, J. M., Carmona, E. J., Daza, M. C., Escobar, S., Galindo, V., Gutiérrez, C., López, S. D., et al. (2011) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/09-2026.1 · Cited by 888
Science in the age of large language models
Birhane, A., Kasirzadeh, A., Leslie, D., & Wachter, S. (2023) · Nature Reviews Physics · doi:10.1038/s42254-023-00581-4 · Cited by 344
Making Language Models Better Reasoners with Step-Aware Verifier
Li, Y., Lin, Z., Zhang, S., Fu, Q., Chen, B., Lou, J.-G., & Chen, W. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.291 · Cited by 69
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 34
- 10.3897/BDJ.10.e89481 · DOI
- 10.1186/1471‐2105‐13‐211 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296 · DOI
- 10.1177/0894439309332293 · DOI
- 10.1002/fee.2320 · DOI
- 10.1186/s13054‐023‐04393‐x · DOI
- 10.1111/gcb.12043 · DOI
- 10.12688/f1000research.2‐191.v1 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1111/geb.13219 · DOI
- 10.1111/ecog.06068 · DOI
- 10.1111/geb.12729 · DOI
- 10.1098/rspb.2021.2721 · DOI
- 10.1186/1471‐2105‐11‐85 · DOI
- 10.3389/fenvs.2021.643847 · DOI
- 10.1002/ece3.2579 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007323 · DOI
- 10.1002/ece3.6368 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1111/2041‐210X.13778 · DOI
- 10.1002/9781118295205.ch18 · DOI
- 10.1016/bs.aecr.2019.02.003 · DOI
- 10.1111/ecog.04532 · DOI
- 10.3897/BDJ.7.e29626 · DOI
- 10.1038/ncomms10122 · DOI
- OpenAI. (2023a).GPT‐4 technical report.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 · DOI · Paper page
- Ouyang L., 2022, Advances in neural information processing systems, 27730
- 10.1109/TKDE.2009.191 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3897/BDJ.2.e1079 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00170675 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.2023989118 · DOI
- 10.1186/s40537‐016‐0043‐6 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.agee.2012.06.020 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Large language models overcome the challenges of unstructured text data in ecology
Castro, A., Pinto, J., Reino, L., Pipek, P., & Capinha, C. (2024) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102742 · Cited by 52
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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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