Back

Breaking the Extraction Bottleneck: A Single AI Agent Achieves Statistical Equivalence with Human-Extracted Meta-Analysis Data Across Five Agricultural Datasets

Halpern, M.

2026-03-23 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.02.17.706322 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundData extraction is the primary bottleneck in meta-analysis, consuming weeks of researcher time with single-extractor error rates of 17.7%. Existing LLM-based systems achieve only 26-36% accuracy on continuous outcomes, and no study has validated AI-extracted continuous data against multiple independent datasets using formal equivalence testing. MethodsA single AI agent (Claude Opus 4.6) extracted treatment means, control means, sample sizes, and variance measures from source PDFs across five published agricultural meta-analyses spanning zinc biofortification, biostimulant efficacy, biochar amendments, predator biocontrol, and elevated CO2 effects on plant mineral nutrition. Observations were matched to reference standards using an LLM-driven alignment method. Validation employed proportional TOST equivalence testing, ICC(3,1), Bland-Altman analysis, and source-type stratification. ResultsAcross five datasets, the agent produced 1,149 matched observations from 136 papers. Pearson correlations ranged from 0.984 to 0.999. Proportional TOST confirmed statistical equivalence for all five datasets (all p < 0.05). Table-sourced observations achieved 5.5x lower median error than figure-sourced observations. Aggregate effects were reproduced within 0.01-1.61 pp of published values. Independent duplicate runs confirmed extraction stability (within 0.09-0.23 pp). ConclusionsA single AI agent achieves statistical equivalence with human-extracted meta-analysis data across five independent agricultural datasets. The approach reduces extraction cost by approximately one to two orders of magnitude while maintaining accuracy sufficient for aggregate meta-analytic pooling. HighlightsO_ST_ABSWhat is already knownC_ST_ABSO_LIData extraction is the primary bottleneck in meta-analysis, with single-extractor error rates of 17.7% C_LIO_LIExisting LLM-based extraction systems achieve only 26-36% accuracy on continuous outcomes C_LIO_LINo study has validated AI extraction against multiple independent datasets using formal equivalence testing C_LI What is newO_LIA single AI agent achieves statistical equivalence with human-extracted data across five agricultural meta-analyses (1,149 observations, 136 papers) C_LIO_LILLM-driven alignment resolves the previously underappreciated bottleneck of moderator matching, improving correlations from 0.377-0.812 to 0.984-0.997 without changing extracted values C_LIO_LITable-sourced observations achieve 5.5x lower error than figure-sourced data C_LI Potential impact for RSM readersO_LIProvides a validated, reproducible workflow for AI-assisted data extraction in meta-analysis C_LIO_LIDemonstrates that most apparent "extraction error" in validation studies is actually alignment error C_LIO_LIOffers practical quality signals (source-type labeling) for downstream meta-analysts C_LI

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Research Synthesis Methods
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.6%
2
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 14%
12.3%
3
Bioinformatics Advances
184 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.4%
4
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
7.1%
5
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 4%
6.3%
6
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.8%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.9%
9
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.1%
10
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
11
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.7%
12
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
14
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 62%
1.5%
15
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
16
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.2%
17
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
18
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.2%
19
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
Applications in Plant Sciences
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
21
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
22
in silico Plants
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
23
Plant Communications
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
26
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
27
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 47%
0.6%
28
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%