ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Impact of hospital-specific domain adaptation on BERT-based models to classify neuroradiology reports.
Article in European radiology, 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.
- Review
- Automated Protocol Suggestions for Cranial MRI Examinations Using Locally Fine-tuned BERT Models.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the effectiveness of hospital-specific domain adaptation through masked language modelling (MLM) on BERT-based models' performance in classifying neuroradiology reports, and to compare these models with open-source large language models (LLMs). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study (2008-2019) utilised 126,556 and 86,032 MRI brain reports from two tertiary hospitals-King's College Hospital (KCH) and Guys and St Thomas' Trust (GSTT). Various BERT-based models, including RoBERTa, BioBERT and RadBERT, underwent MLM on unlabelled reports from these centres. The downstream tasks were binary abnormality classification and multi-label classification. Performances of models with and without hospital-specific domain adaptation were compared against each other and LLMs on internal (KCH) and external (GSTT) hold-out test sets. Model performances for binary classification were compared using 2-way and 1-way ANOVA.
resultsAll models that underwent hospital-specific domain adaptation performed better than their baseline counterparts (all p-values < 0.001). For binary classification, MLM on all available unlabelled reports (194,467 reports) yielded the highest balanced accuracies (KCH: mean 97.0 ± 0.4% (standard deviation), GSTT: 95.5 ± 1.0%), after which no differences between BERT-based models remained (1-way ANOVA, p-values > 0.05). There was a log-linear relationship between the number of reports and performance. LLama-3.0 70B was the best-performing LLM (KCH: 97.1%, GSTT: 94.0%). Multi-label classification demonstrated consistent performance improvements from MLM for all abnormality categories.
conclusionHospital-specific domain adaptation should be considered best practice when deploying BERT-based models in new clinical settings. When labelled data is scarce or unavailable, LLMs can serve as a viable alternative, assuming adequate computational power is accessible. KEY POINTS: Question BERT-based models can classify radiology reports, but it is unclear if there is any incremental benefit from additional hospital-specific domain adaptation. Findings Hospital-specific domain adaptation resulted in the highest BERT-based model accuracies and performance scaled log-linearly with the number of reports. Clinical relevance BERT-based models after hospital-specific domain adaptation achieve the best classification results provided sufficient high-quality training labels. When labelled data is scarce, LLMs such as Llama-3.0 70B are a viable alternative provided there are sufficient computational resources.
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.