Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38955964›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025

Fine-Tuned Large Language Model for Extracting Patients on Pretreatment for Lung Cancer from a Picture Archiving and Communication System Based on Radiological Reports.

Koichiro Yasaka, Jun Kanzawa, Noriko Kanemaru, Saori Koshino, Osamu Abe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Large Language Models in Lung Cancer: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Koichiro YasakaDepartment of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. koyasaka@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0324-6562
Jun KanzawaDepartment of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Noriko KanemaruDepartment of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Saori KoshinoDepartment of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Osamu AbeDepartment of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the performance of a fine-tuned large language model (LLM) in extracting patients on pretreatment for lung cancer from picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) and comparing it with that of radiologists. Patients whose radiological reports contained the term lung cancer (3111 for training, 124 for validation, and 288 for test) were included in this retrospective study. Based on clinical indication and diagnosis sections of the radiological report (used as input data), they were classified into four groups (used as reference data): group 0 (no lung cancer), group 1 (pretreatment lung cancer present), group 2 (after treatment for lung cancer), and group 3 (planning radiation therapy). Using the training and validation datasets, fine-tuning of the pretrained LLM was conducted ten times. Due to group imbalance, group 2 data were undersampled in the training. The performance of the best-performing model in the validation dataset was assessed in the independent test dataset. For testing purposes, two other radiologists (readers 1 and 2) were also involved in classifying radiological reports. The overall accuracy of the fine-tuned LLM, reader 1, and reader 2 was 0.983, 0.969, and 0.969, respectively. The sensitivity for differentiating group 0/1/2/3 by LLM, reader 1, and reader 2 was 1.000/0.948/0.991/1.000, 0.750/0.879/0.996/1.000, and 1.000/0.931/0.978/1.000, respectively. The time required for classification by LLM, reader 1, and reader 2 was 46s/2539s/1538s, respectively. Fine-tuned LLM effectively extracted patients on pretreatment for lung cancer from PACS with comparable performance to radiologists in a shorter time.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsRadiology Information SystemsFemaleHumansLarge Language ModelsMaleRetrospective StudiesDeep learningLung neoplasmsRadiology information systems

Identifiers

PMID38955964
PMCPMC11811339

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.