ArticleInternational journal of biomedical imaging2025
Radiology Report Annotation Using Generative Large Language Models: Comparative Analysis.
Article in International journal of biomedical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retrieval-augmented generation-enhanced large language models for comprehensive CAD-RADS 2.0 categorization from structured coronary CTA reports.Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- From dictation to diagnosis: enhancing radiology reporting with integrated speech recognition in multimodal large language models.European radiology · 2026Article
- RadAnnotate: Large Language Models for Efficient and Reliable Radiology Report Annotation.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs), particularly GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, have sparked significant interest in their application within the medical field. This research offers a detailed comparative analysis of the abilities of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in the context of annotating radiology reports and generating impressions from chest computed tomography (CT) scans. The primary objective is to use these models to assist healthcare professionals in handling routine documentation tasks. Employing methods such as in-context learning (ICL) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), the study focused on generating impression sections from radiological findings. Comprehensive evaluation was applied using a variety of metrics, including recall-oriented understudy for gisting evaluation (ROUGE) for n-gram analysis, Instructor Similarity for contextual similarity, and BERTScore for semantic similarity, to assess the performance of these models. The study shows distinct performance differences between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 across both zero-shot and few-shot learning scenarios. It was observed that certain prompts significantly influenced the performance outcomes, with specific prompts leading to more accurate impressions. The RAG method achieved a superior BERTScore of 0.92, showcasing its ability to generate semantically rich and contextually accurate impressions. In contrast, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 excel in preserving language tone, with Instructor Similarity scores of approximately 0.92 across scenarios, underscoring the importance of prompt design in effective summarization tasks. The findings of this research emphasize the critical role of prompt design in optimizing model efficacy and point to the significant potential for further exploration in prompt engineering. Moreover, the study advocates for the standardized integration of such advanced LLMs in healthcare practices, highlighting their potential to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of medical documentation.
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.