arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language · · 4 min read

Artificial Intelligence Can Match Domain Experts in Evidence Extraction and Critical Appraisal of Microbial Oncogenesis Research Publications

Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Quantitative Biology > Quantitative Methods

arXiv:2608.07250 (q-bio)
[Submitted on 7 Aug 2026]

Title:Artificial Intelligence Can Match Domain Experts in Evidence Extraction and Critical Appraisal of Microbial Oncogenesis Research Publications

View a PDF of the paper titled Artificial Intelligence Can Match Domain Experts in Evidence Extraction and Critical Appraisal of Microbial Oncogenesis Research Publications, by Kaela Kokkas and 13 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Confirmed oncogenic microbes contribute significantly to cancer burden. Identifying novel microbial oncogenicity could yield strategies that will reduce disease burdens. However, relevant evidence is dispersed and infeasible for humans to comprehensively synthesize. LLMs may enable scalable, expert-level systematic evidence synthesis to identify microbe-cancer pairs; however, such capabilities have not yet been demonstrated. Domain experts were recruited to create a dataset to benchmark LLM performance (Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5, GPT-5 Nano) on 24 research papers using MMTV-LV and breast cancer as a case study. We devised a structured template for evidence extraction and appraisal, consisting of MCQ, Likert-scale, multi-select, and free-text question types (77 items across 24 papers). Agreement between (1) experts and (2) experts and each LLM was determined per question instance using novel metrics. LLMs were assessed by comparing inter-expert and expert-LLM agreement distributions to determine whether LLMs behaved as additional experts by increasing or maintaining inter-expert agreement. Free-text responses were further evaluated qualitatively. Across all question types, LLM responses aligned closely with experts, with GPT-5 and GPT-5 Nano achieving score distributions indistinguishable from experts. Gemini models behaved similarly but were significantly more lenient in applying microbial oncogenesis criteria. Hallucinations were rare. Methodological appraisal and identification of contradictions within full-texts were the most persistent LLM vulnerabilities. GPT-5 and GPT-5 Nano were indistinguishable from experts on structured domain research paper evaluation tasks. This supports use of LLMs for automated systematic evidence synthesis. However, methodological appraisal tasks and contradiction identification in full-texts remain weaknesses requiring strengthening.
Comments: Published in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, 45 pages, 14 figures
Subjects: Quantitative Methods (q-bio.QM); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2608.07250 [q-bio.QM]
  (or arXiv:2608.07250v1 [q-bio.QM] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.07250
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Journal reference: Kokkas K, Wang H, Klein R, et al. (2026) Artificial intelligence can match domain experts in evidence extraction and critical appraisal of microbial oncogenesis research publications. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 16:1876326
Related DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2026.1876326
DOI(s) linking to related resources

Submission history

From: Kaela Kokkas [view email]
[v1] Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:07:57 UTC (3,610 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Artificial Intelligence Can Match Domain Experts in Evidence Extraction and Critical Appraisal of Microbial Oncogenesis Research Publications, by Kaela Kokkas and 13 other authors
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source

Current browse context:

q-bio.QM
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language