GAPMAP: Mapping Scientific Knowledge Gaps in Biomedical Literature Using Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.25055v1
• Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:46:45 GMT
• Title: GAPMAP: Mapping Scientific Knowledge Gaps in Biomedical Literature Using Large Language Models
• Authors: Nourah M Salem, Elizabeth White, Michael Bada, Lawrence Hunter,
• Abstract summary: This study investigates the ability of large language models to identify research knowledge gaps in the biomedical literature.<n>We define two categories of knowledge gaps: explicit gaps, clear declarations of missing knowledge; and implicit gaps, context-inferred missing knowledge.<n>We conducted two experiments on almost 1500 documents across four datasets, including a manually annotated corpus of biomedical articles.
• Score: 2.770730728142587
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Scientific progress is driven by the deliberate articulation of what remains unknown. This study investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to identify research knowledge gaps in the biomedical literature. We define two categories of knowledge gaps: explicit gaps, clear declarations of missing knowledge; and implicit gaps, context-inferred missing knowledge. While prior work has focused mainly on explicit gap detection, we extend this line of research by addressing the novel task of inferring implicit gaps. We conducted two experiments on almost 1500 documents across four datasets, including a manually annotated corpus of biomedical articles. We benchmarked both closed-weight models (from OpenAI) and open-weight models (Llama and Gemma 2) under paragraph-level and full-paper settings. To address the reasoning of implicit gaps inference, we introduce \textbf{\small TABI}, a Toulmin-Abductive Bucketed Inference scheme that structures reasoning and buckets inferred conclusion candidates for validation. Our results highlight the robust capability of LLMs in identifying both explicit and implicit knowledge gaps. This is true for both open- and closed-weight models, with larger variants often performing better. This suggests a strong ability of LLMs for systematically identifying candidate knowledge gaps, which can support early-stage research formulation, policymakers, and funding decisions. We also report observed failure modes and outline directions for robust deployment, including domain adaptation, human-in-the-loop verification, and benchmarking across open- and closed-weight models.

Related papers

• Generative Human-Object Interaction Detection via Differentiable Cognitive Steering of Multi-modal LLMs [85.69785384599827]
  Human-object interaction (HOI) detection aims to localize human-object pairs and the interactions between them.<n>Existing methods operate under a closed-world assumption, treating the task as a classification problem over a small, predefined verb set.<n>We propose GRASP-HO, a novel Generative Reasoning And Steerable Perception framework that reformulates HOI detection from the closed-set classification task to the open-vocabulary generation problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-19T14:41:50Z)
• Advancing AI Research Assistants with Expert-Involved Learning [84.30323604785646]
  Large language models (LLMs) and large multimodal models (LMMs) promise to accelerate biomedical discovery, yet their reliability remains unclear.<n>We introduce ARIEL (AI Research Assistant for Expert-in-the-Loop Learning), an open-source evaluation and optimization framework.<n>We find that state-of-the-art models generate fluent but incomplete summaries, whereas LMMs struggle with detailed visual reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-03T14:21:48Z)
• Attention Heads of Large Language Models: A Survey [10.136767972375639]
  We aim to demystify the internal reasoning processes of Large Language Models (LLMs) by systematically exploring the roles and mechanisms of attention heads.<n>We first introduce a novel four-stage framework inspired by the human thought process: Knowledge Recalling, In-Context Identification, Latent Reasoning, and Expression Preparation.<n>We analyze the experimental methodologies used to discover these special heads, dividing them into two categories: Modeling-Free and Modeling-Required methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-05T17:59:12Z)
• Automating Intervention Discovery from Scientific Literature: A Progressive Ontology Prompting and Dual-LLM Framework [56.858564736806414]
  This paper proposes a novel framework leveraging large language models (LLMs) to identify interventions in scientific literature.<n>Our approach successfully identified 2,421 interventions from a corpus of 64,177 research articles in the speech-language pathology domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T16:42:23Z)
• M-QALM: A Benchmark to Assess Clinical Reading Comprehension and Knowledge Recall in Large Language Models via Question Answering [14.198330378235632]
  We use Multiple Choice and Abstractive Question Answering to conduct a large-scale empirical study on 22 datasets in three generalist and three specialist biomedical sub-domains. Our multifaceted analysis of the performance of 15 LLMs uncovers success factors such as instruction tuning that lead to improved recall and comprehension. We show that while recently proposed domain-adapted models may lack adequate knowledge, directly fine-tuning on our collected medical knowledge datasets shows encouraging results. We complement the quantitative results with a skill-oriented manual error analysis, which reveals a significant gap between the models' capabilities to simply recall necessary knowledge and to integrate it with the presented
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T02:43:21Z)
• Can large language models understand uncommon meanings of common words? [30.527834781076546]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown significant advancements across diverse natural language understanding (NLU) tasks. Yet, lacking widely acknowledged testing mechanisms, answering whether LLMs are parrots or genuinely comprehend the world' remains unclear. This paper presents innovative construction of a Lexical Semantic dataset with novel evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-09T12:58:22Z)
• Graph-Based Retriever Captures the Long Tail of Biomedical Knowledge [2.2814097119704058]
  Large language models (LLMs) are transforming the way information is retrieved with vast amounts of knowledge being summarized and presented. LLMs are prone to highlight the most frequently seen pieces of information from the training set and to neglect the rare ones. We introduce a novel information-retrieval method that leverages a knowledge graph to downsample these clusters and mitigate the information overload problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T18:31:11Z)
• Diversifying Knowledge Enhancement of Biomedical Language Models using Adapter Modules and Knowledge Graphs [54.223394825528665]
  We develop an approach that uses lightweight adapter modules to inject structured biomedical knowledge into pre-trained language models. We use two large KGs, the biomedical knowledge system UMLS and the novel biochemical OntoChem, with two prominent biomedical PLMs, PubMedBERT and BioLinkBERT. We show that our methodology leads to performance improvements in several instances while keeping requirements in computing power low.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-21T14:26:57Z)
• Exploring the Cognitive Knowledge Structure of Large Language Models: An Educational Diagnostic Assessment Approach [50.125704610228254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have not only exhibited exceptional performance across various tasks, but also demonstrated sparks of intelligence. Recent studies have focused on assessing their capabilities on human exams and revealed their impressive competence in different domains. We conduct an evaluation using MoocRadar, a meticulously annotated human test dataset based on Bloom taxonomy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-12T09:55:45Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Exploring the In-context Learning Ability of Large Language Model for Biomedical Concept Linking [4.8882241537236455]
  This research investigates a method that exploits the in-context learning capabilities of large models for biomedical concept linking. The proposed approach adopts a two-stage retrieve-and-rank framework. It achieved an accuracy of 90.% in BC5CDR disease entity normalization and 94.7% in chemical entity normalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-03T16:19:50Z)
• Large Language Models, scientific knowledge and factuality: A framework to streamline human expert evaluation [0.0]
  This work explores the potential of Large Language Models for dialoguing with biomedical background knowledge. The framework involves of three evaluation steps, each assessing different aspects sequentially: fluency, prompt alignment, semantic coherence, factual knowledge, and specificity of the generated responses. The work provides a systematic assessment on the ability of eleven state-of-the-art models LLMs, including ChatGPT, GPT-4 and Llama 2, in two prompting-based tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-28T22:46:21Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.