Can Generative AI Automate Data Extraction for Meta-Analysis? A Case Study on Intercropping Research
Organizations: Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands · Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Abstract
Meta-analysis is the synthesis of information from multiple sources to arrive at an overarching conclusion. There is a large need for meta-analysis in agricultural research to synthesize what is known and analyze overarching patterns. Extracting data from published literature is, however, labor-intensive, time-consuming, and tedious, and is impeded by a lack of standardization in research design, units of measurement, and terminology. These challenges are particularly evident in the domain of crop species mixtures, also called intercropping. With the growing capabilities of LLMs, many recent attempts have focused on building systems and tools to automate data collection, yet rigorous assessment against human-labeled ground truth is often missing. In this research, we evaluate three LLM-based approaches---direct zero-shot prompting, a staged workflow, and a multi-agent system---with six open-weight models to extract data from the intercropping literature. The results are evaluated against the manually curated ground truth and through a downstream statistical analysis. Overall, direct zero-shot prompting is the strongest and most consistent approach, achieving the highest mean similarity-adjusted F1 of 0.577, although none of the approaches is close to fully accurate. In the downstream analysis, most model--approach combinations recover the direction of the relationship between the predictor and outcome variables, but do not estimate its magnitude accurately.
Figures & tables
| LLM | Direct | Workflow | MAS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen3.6-27B | 48/0/42 | 41/5/44 | 50/12/28 |
| Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | 86/0/4 | 76/0/14 | 57/29/4 |
| Gemma-4-31B | 69/1/20 | 65/0/25 | 74/6/10 |
| Qwen3.5-122B | 71/0/19 | 68/0/22 | 46/34/10 |
| Llama-70B | 74/1/15 | 73/3/14 | 55/22/13 |
| GPT-OSS-120B | 75/1/14 | 73/2/15 | 68/13/9 |
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Field | Definition |
|---|---|
| Year of data | Year or years in which the experimental data were collected. |
| Duration of experiment | Total duration of the experiment, expressed in days, years, or growing seasons. |
| Experimental design | Experimental layout used in the study, such as a randomized complete block design. |
| Sowing date 1 | Date on which the first crop species in the intercropping system was sown. |
| Sowing date 2 | Date on which the second crop species in the intercropping system was sown. |
| Harvest date 1 | Date on which the first crop species was harvested. |
| Agent | Description |
|---|---|
| Planner | Creates the four-step execution plan and assigns each step to the corresponding agent. |
| Value identifier | Scans the complete paper and identifies values associated with fields in the extraction schema. |
| Labeller | Uses the xml_tag_from_field_values tool to insert field-specific XML tags around the identified values while preserving the original document. |
| Direct extractor | Applies the direct zero-shot extraction procedure to the original paper and produces an initial set of structured records. |
| Record extractor | Refines the initial records using the XML-labelled document, filling missing fields and correcting values when supported by the tagged evidence. |