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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Large Language Models in Lung Cancer: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Fine-Tuned Large Language Model for Extracting Pretreatment Pancreatic Cancer According to Computed Tomography Radiology Reports.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Insufficient reporting quality in large language model studies in the field of radiology.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Article
- Efficacy of a large language model in classifying branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Trends and Trajectories in the Rise of Large Language Models in Radiology: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Fine-Tuned Large Language Model in CT Protocol Assignment as Clinical Decision-Supporting System.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Classification of Interventional Radiology Reports into Technique Categories with a Fine-Tuned Large Language Model.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Two stage large language model approach enhancing entity classification and relationship mapping in radiology reports.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Fine-tuned large Language model for extracting newly identified acute brain infarcts based on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging reports.Emergency radiology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of large language models in generating pulmonary nodule follow-up recommendations.European journal of radiology open · 2025Article
- The Fine-Tuned Large Language Model for Extracting the Progressive Bone Metastasis from Unstructured Radiology Reports.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.