Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37904738›Full record

ArticleArXiv2023

Automatic Personalized Impression Generation for PET Reports Using Large Language Models.

Xin Tie, Muheon Shin, Ali Pirasteh, Nevein Ibrahim, Zachary Huemann, Sharon M Castellino, Kara M Kelly, John Garrett, Junjie Hu, Steve Y Cho and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in ArXiv, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Xin TieDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Muheon ShinDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Ali PirastehDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Nevein IbrahimDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Zachary HuemannDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Sharon M CastellinoDepartment of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Kara M KellyDepartment of Pediatric Oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.
John GarrettDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Junjie HuDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Steve Y ChoDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Tyler J BradshawDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USEmory University · USRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center · US

Funding

NCTN BIQSFP ANBL1531 (NRT)U10CA180886 · NCI · PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE · PI Douglas S. Hawkins · 2014 to 2026
$390.6M
COG SDMC - Statistics CoreU10CA180899 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI TODD A ALONZO · 2014 to 2026
$132.8M
IROC: Enhancing local enrolling site radiological data capture capabilities for NCTN trialsU24CA180803 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI Thomas J. FitzGerald, MICHAEL V KNOPP · 2014 to 2026
$116.2M
NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180886NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180899NCI NIH HHS U24 CA180803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To determine if fine-tuned large language models (LLMs) can generate accurate, personalized impressions for whole-body PET reports. Materials and Methods: Twelve language models were trained on a corpus of PET reports using the teacher-forcing algorithm, with the report findings as input and the clinical impressions as reference. An extra input token encodes the reading physician's identity, allowing models to learn physician-specific reporting styles. Our corpus comprised 37,370 retrospective PET reports collected from our institution between 2010 and 2022. To identify the best LLM, 30 evaluation metrics were benchmarked against quality scores from two nuclear medicine (NM) physicians, with the most aligned metrics selecting the model for expert evaluation. In a subset of data, model-generated impressions and original clinical impressions were assessed by three NM physicians according to 6 quality dimensions (3-point scale) and an overall utility score (5-point scale). Each physician reviewed 12 of their own reports and 12 reports from other physicians. Bootstrap resampling was used for statistical analysis. Results: Of all evaluation metrics, domain-adapted BARTScore and PEGASUSScore showed the highest Spearman's Conclusion: Personalized impressions generated by PEGASUS were clinically useful, highlighting its potential to expedite PET reporting.

Indexed as

FindingsImpressionsInformaticsLarge language modelsPET report summarization

Identifiers

PMID37904738
PMCPMC10614982
OpenAlexW4386907105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.