ArticleCureus2024
Programming Chatbots Using Natural Language: Generating Cervical Spine MRI Impressions.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative performance of large language models in structuring head CT radiology reports: multi-institutional validation study in Japan.Japanese journal of radiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe utility of machine learning, specifically large language models (LLMs), in the medical field has gained considerable attention. However, there is a scarcity of studies that focus on the application of LLMs in generating custom subspecialty radiology impressions. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the performance of multiple LLMs in generating specialized, accurate, and clinically useful radiology impressions for degenerative cervical spine MRI reports. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study employed a comparative analysis of multiple LLMs, including OpenAI's ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4 (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA), Antrhopic's Claude 2 (Anthropic PBC, San Francisco, CA), Google's Bard (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA), and Meta's Llama 2 (Meta Platforms, Inc., Menlo Park, CA). This was performed during January-February 2024. These models were evaluated using a few-shot learning approach on a dataset consisting of 10 examples from 50 synthetically generated MRI reports. Performance metrics evaluated were diagnostic accuracy, stylistic accuracy, and redundancy.
resultsWhile Claude 2 maintained consistent high performance across 40 cases, GPT-4 required midway re-training to improve its declining scores. Both Claude 2 and GPT-4 demonstrated the ability to generate structured impressions, but Claude 2's specialized summarization capabilities provided an edge in maintaining accuracy without continuous feedback. The other LLMs' performance was subpar.
conclusionThe findings of this study suggest that LLMs can be a valuable tool in automating the generation of radiology impressions. Claude 2, in particular, exhibited promising results, indicating its potential for clinical implementation. However, the study also points to the necessity for further research, especially in optimizing model performance and evaluating real-world applicability.
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.