ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2025
Data extraction from free-text stroke CT reports using GPT-4o and Llama-3.3-70B: the impact of annotation guidelines.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How green are large language models for radiology report labelling? Comparing human, rule-based and hybrid workflows.Insights into imaging · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the impact of an annotation guideline on the performance of large language models (LLMs) in extracting data from stroke computed tomography (CT) reports.
methodsThe performance of GPT-4o and Llama-3.3-70B in extracting ten imaging findings from stroke CT reports was assessed in two datasets from a single academic stroke center. Dataset A (n = 200) was a stratified cohort including various pathological findings, whereas dataset B (n = 100) was a consecutive cohort. Initially, an annotation guideline providing clear data extraction instructions was designed based on a review of cases with inter-annotator disagreements in dataset A. For each LLM, data extraction was performed under two conditions: with the annotation guideline included in the prompt and without it.
resultsGPT-4o consistently demonstrated superior performance over Llama-3.3-70B under identical conditions, with micro-averaged precision ranging from 0.83 to 0.95 for GPT-4o and from 0.65 to 0.86 for Llama-3.3-70B. Across both models and both datasets, incorporating the annotation guideline into the LLM input resulted in higher precision rates, while recall rates largely remained stable. In dataset B, the precision of GPT-4o and Llama-3-70B improved from 0.83 to 0.95 and from 0.87 to 0.94, respectively. Overall classification performance with and without the annotation guideline was significantly different in five out of six conditions.
conclusionGPT-4o and Llama-3.3-70B show promising performance in extracting imaging findings from stroke CT reports, although GPT-4o steadily outperformed Llama-3.3-70B. We also provide evidence that well-defined annotation guidelines can enhance LLM data extraction accuracy. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Annotation guidelines can improve the accuracy of LLMs in extracting findings from radiological reports, potentially optimizing data extraction for specific downstream applications. KEY POINTS: LLMs have utility in data extraction from radiology reports, but the role of annotation guidelines remains underexplored. Data extraction accuracy from stroke CT reports by GPT-4o and Llama-3.3-70B improved when well-defined annotation guidelines were incorporated into the model prompt. Well-defined annotation guidelines can improve the accuracy of LLMs in extracting imaging findings from radiological reports.
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.