ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2025
Comparative performance of large language models in structuring head CT radiology reports: multi-institutional validation study in Japan.
Article in Japanese journal of 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.
- RadCoT: a Radiological Chain-of-Thought framework for enhanced error detection in radiology reports.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Recent Advances in Musculoskeletal Radiology: Bridging Innovation and Clinical Application.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluating the Accuracy and Diagnostic Reasoning of Multimodal Large Language Models in Interpreting Neuroradiology Cases FromKorean journal of radiology · 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
purposeTo compare the diagnostic performance of three proprietary large language models (LLMs)-Claude, GPT, and Gemini-in structuring free-text Japanese radiology reports for intracranial hemorrhage and skull fractures, and to assess the impact of three different prompting approaches on model accuracy. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, head CT reports from the Japan Medical Imaging Database between 2018 and 2023 were collected. Two board-certified radiologists established the ground truth regarding intracranial hemorrhage and skull fractures through independent review and consensus. Each radiology report was analyzed by three LLMs using three prompting strategies-Standard, Chain of Thought, and Self Consistency prompting. Diagnostic performance (accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score) was calculated for each LLM-prompt combination and compared using McNemar's tests with Bonferroni correction. Misclassified cases underwent qualitative error analysis.
resultsA total of 3949 head CT reports from 3949 patients (mean age 59 ± 25 years, 56.2% male) were enrolled. Across all institutions, 856 patients (21.6%) had intracranial hemorrhage and 264 patients (6.6%) had skull fractures. All nine LLM-prompt combinations achieved very high accuracy. Claude demonstrated significantly higher accuracy for intracranial hemorrhage than GPT and Gemini, and also outperformed Gemini for skull fractures (p < 0.0001). Gemini's performance improved notably with Chain of Thought prompting. Error analysis revealed common challenges including ambiguous phrases and findings unrelated to intracranial hemorrhage or skull fractures, underscoring the importance of careful prompt design.
conclusionAll three proprietary LLMs exhibited strong performance in structuring free-text head CT reports for intracranial hemorrhage and skull fractures. While the choice of prompting method influenced accuracy, all models demonstrated robust potential for clinical and research applications. Future work should refine the prompts and validate these approaches in prospective, multilingual settings.
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.