Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39673010›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025

Classification of Interventional Radiology Reports into Technique Categories with a Fine-Tuned Large Language Model.

Koichiro Yasaka, Takuto Nomura, Jun Kamohara, Hiroshi Hirakawa, Takatoshi Kubo, Shigeru Kiryu, 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Koichiro YasakaDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. koyasaka@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0324-6562
Takuto NomuraDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Jun KamoharaDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Hiroshi HirakawaDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Takatoshi KuboDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Shigeru KiryuDepartment of Radiology, International University of Health and Welfare Narita Hospital, 852 Hatakeda, Narita, Chiba, 286-0124, Japan.
Osamu AbeDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop a fine-tuned large language model that classifies interventional radiology reports into technique categories and to compare its performance with readers. This retrospective study included 3198 patients (1758 males and 1440 females; age, 62.8 ± 16.8 years) who underwent interventional radiology from January 2018 to July 2024. Training, validation, and test datasets involved 2292, 250, and 656 patients, respectively. Input data involved texts in clinical indication, imaging diagnosis, and image-finding sections of interventional radiology reports. Manually classified technique categories (15 categories in total) were utilized as reference data. Fine-tuning of the Bidirectional Encoder Representations model was performed using training and validation datasets. This process was repeated 15 times due to the randomness of the learning process. The best-performed model, which showed the highest accuracy among 15 trials, was selected to further evaluate its performance in the independent test dataset. The report classification involved one radiologist (reader 1) and two radiology residents (readers 2 and 3). The accuracy and macrosensitivity (average of each category's sensitivity) of the best-performed model in the validation dataset were 0.996 and 0.994, respectively. For the test dataset, the accuracy/macrosensitivity were 0.988/0.980, 0.986/0.977, 0.989/0.979, and 0.988/0.980 in the best model, reader 1, reader 2, and reader 3, respectively. The model required 0.178 s required for classification per patient, which was 17.5-19.9 times faster than readers. In conclusion, fine-tuned large language model classified interventional radiology reports into technique categories with high accuracy similar to readers within a remarkably shorter time.

Indexed as

Radiology, InterventionalAgedFemaleHumansLarge Language ModelsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesInterventional radiologyLarge language modelNatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID39673010
PMCPMC12572523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.