All Models are Wrong, Some are Annotated: Automating Metadata in Biomedical Repositories.

Area of Science:

• Computational Neuroscience
• Bioinformatics
• Artificial Intelligence

Background:

• High-quality metadata is crucial for scientific discovery but is often sparse in large data repositories.
• Manually annotating complex biological details, such as ion channel and receptor subtypes, from source code is time-consuming and challenging.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) in automatically inferring ion channel and receptor subtype metadata directly from source code.
• To compare LLM performance against a traditional feature-engineered baseline model.

Main Methods:

• Extracted 5,133 model files from the ModelDB repository.
• Manually annotated 1,100 models, with 253 reserved for testing.
• Evaluated LLM approaches (GPT-5.2, GPT-mini) using zero-shot and heuristic-augmented prompting.
• Compared LLM performance (accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score) against an XGBoost baseline model.

Main Results:

• LLMs significantly outperformed the XGBoost baseline model in metadata annotation.
• Heuristically augmented GPT-mini achieved 96.0% accuracy at the type level and 88.1% accuracy at the subtype level.
• LLM outputs were consistent and errors were generally limited to related biological families.

Conclusions:

• LLMs show strong potential for scalable metadata generation directly from scientific source code, requiring minimal tuning.
• While effective, LLM performance can vary across subtypes, necessitating domain-specific validation and careful evaluation.
• The approach is promising for enhancing biomedical repositories and may generalize to other scientific code repositories.