Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40536631›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2025

Data extraction from free-text stroke CT reports using GPT-4o and Llama-3.3-70B: the impact of annotation guidelines.

Jonas Wihl, Enrike Rosenkranz, Severin Schramm, Cornelius Berberich, Michael Griessmair, Piotr Woźnicki, Francisco Pinto, Sebastian Ziegelmayer, Lisa C Adams, Keno K Bressem and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Jonas WihlDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, TUM University Hospital, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Enrike RosenkranzDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, TUM University Hospital, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Severin SchrammDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, TUM University Hospital, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Cornelius BerberichDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, TUM University Hospital, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Michael GriessmairDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, TUM University Hospital, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Piotr WoźnickiSmart Reporting GmbH, Munich, Germany.
Francisco PintoSmart Reporting GmbH, Munich, Germany.
Sebastian ZiegelmayerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, TUM University Hospital, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Lisa C AdamsDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, TUM University Hospital, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Keno K BressemDepartment of Cardiovascular Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, German Heart Center Munich, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jan S KirschkeDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, TUM University Hospital, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Claus ZimmerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, TUM University Hospital, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Benedikt WiestlerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, TUM University Hospital, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Dennis HedderichDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, TUM University Hospital, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Su Hwan KimDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, TUM University Hospital, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. suhwan.kim@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5383-2041

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Data MiningStrokeTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansArtificial intelligenceInformation storage and retrievalLarge language modelsStrokeTomography (x-ray computed)

Identifiers

PMID40536631
PMCPMC12179022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.