Abstract
Linking free-text phenotype descriptions to ontology terms, typically referred to as phenotype annotation, is essential for the cross-study integration of comparative morphological data. This labor intensive process has heavily relied on highly trained human experts, which makes it challenging to scale and thus a key bottleneck. Dahdul et al. (2018) established a Gold Standard (GS) of Entity-Quality (EQ) annotations across seven phylogenetic studies and used it to evaluate three human curators and the Semantic CharaParser NLP tool with ontology-based semantic similarity metrics; they reported that machine-human consistency was significantly lower than inter-curator (human-human) consistency. Here we revisit that benchmark with five frontier hosted LLMs from Anthropic and OpenAI, each operating as an "agentic curator" within a self-contained workspace that supplies the source publication PDF, the same annotation guide used by the original human curators, the four project ontologies (UBERON, PATO, BSPO, GO), and a validation script. Evaluated against the same Gold Standard, every agent fell within the range of inter-curator variability of the three trained human biocurators of the original study; the best performing agents approached but did not reach the best performing human curator. Agents substantially outperformed Semantic CharaParser on all four metrics.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28965
