ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
Using a Large Language Model for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Classification and Malignancy Prediction to Enhance Breast Ultrasound Diagnosis: Retrospective Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07500428 (Construction of a Standardized Benchmark Evaluation System for Intelligent Breast Ultrasound Image Interpretation and Systematic Performance Assessment of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Models Based on ACR BI-RADS v2025 Criteria), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Construction of a Standardized Benchmark Evaluation System for Intelligent Breast Ultrasound Image Interpretation and Systematic Performance Assessment of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Models Based on ACR BI-RADS v2025 Criteria
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transforming adnexal mass assessment: how large language model improve ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system interpretation and sonographer performance.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on BI-RADS Classification and Diagnostic Confidence in Mammography Interpretation by Radiology Residents.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Benchmarking GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Grok 4, and other LLMs on pediatric dentistry questions from a dental specialization exam.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of large language models in assigning PI-RADS v2.1 categories for prostate MRI reports.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Performance of ChatGPT-4o, Claude 3 Opus, and DeepSeek-R1 in BI-RADS Category 4 Classification and Malignancy Prediction From Mammography Reports: Retrospective Diagnostic Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Extracting structured data from unstructured breast imaging reports with transformer-based models.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Development and validation of natural language processing algorithms in the national ENACT network.Journal of clinical and translational science · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast ultrasound is essential for evaluating breast nodules, with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) providing standardized classification. However, interobserver variability among radiologists can affect diagnostic accuracy. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT-4 have shown potential in medical imaging interpretation. This study explores its feasibility in improving BI-RADS classification consistency and malignancy prediction compared to radiologists. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of using LLMs, particularly ChatGPT-4, to assess the consistency and diagnostic accuracy of standardized breast ultrasound imaging reports, using pathology as the reference standard. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed breast nodule ultrasound data from 671 female patients (mean 45.82, SD 9.20 years; range 26-75 years) who underwent biopsy or surgical excision at our hospital between June 2019 and June 2024. ChatGPT-4 was used to interpret BI-RADS classifications and predict benign versus malignant nodules. The study compared the model's performance to that of two senior radiologists (≥15 years of experience) and two junior radiologists (<5 years of experience) using key diagnostic metrics, including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, P values, and odds ratios with 95% CIs. Two diagnostic models were evaluated: (1) image interpretation model, where ChatGPT-4 classified nodules based on BI-RADS features, and (2) image-to-text-LLM model, where radiologists provided textual descriptions, and ChatGPT-4 determined malignancy probability based on keywords. Radiologists were blinded to pathological outcomes, and BI-RADS classifications were finalized through consensus. Results: ChatGPT-4 achieved an overall BI-RADS classification accuracy of 96.87%, outperforming junior radiologists (617/671, 91.95% and 604/671, 90.01%, P<.01). For malignancy prediction, ChatGPT-4 achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82 (95% CI 0.79-0.85), an accuracy of 80.63% (541/671 cases), a sensitivity of 90.56% (259/286 cases), and a specificity of 73.51% (283/385 cases). The image interpretation model demonstrated performance comparable to senior radiologists, while the image-to-text-LLM model further improved diagnostic accuracy for all radiologists, increasing their sensitivity and specificity significantly (P<.001). Statistical analyses, including the McNemar test and DeLong test, confirmed that ChatGPT-4 outperformed junior radiologists (P<.01) and showed noninferiority compared to senior radiologists (P>.05). Pathological diagnoses served as the reference standard, ensuring robust evaluation reliability. Conclusions: Integrating ChatGPT-4 into an image-to-text-LLM workflow improves BI-RADS classification accuracy and supports radiologists in breast ultrasound diagnostics. These results demonstrate its potential as a decision-support tool to enhance diagnostic consistency and reduce variability.
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.