Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40624390›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026

Leveraging Large Language Models for Accurate AO Fracture Classification from CT Text Reports.

Markus Mergen, Daniel Spitzl, Conrad Ketzer, Maximilian Strenzke, Alexander W Marka, Marcus R Makowski, Keno K Bressem, Lisa C Adams, Florian T Gassert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. AI-assisted tumor board decision-making in pancreatic oncology.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026
    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

9 authors.

Markus Mergen *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, School of Medicine, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Daniel Spitzl *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, School of Medicine, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, 81675, Munich, Germany. Danieljan.Spitzl@mri.tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-5878-3189
Conrad KetzerDepartment of Trauma Surgery, School of Medicine, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Maximilian StrenzkeDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, School of Medicine, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Alexander W MarkaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, School of Medicine, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Marcus R MakowskiDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, School of Medicine, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Keno K BressemDepartment of Cardiovascular Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine and Health, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, 80636, Munich, Germany.
Lisa C AdamsDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, School of Medicine, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Florian T GassertDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, School of Medicine, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, 81675, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising potential in analyzing complex textual data, including radiological reports. These models can assist clinicians, particularly those with limited experience, by integrating and presenting diagnostic criteria within radiological classifications. However, before clinical adoption, LLMs must be rigorously validated by medical professionals to ensure accuracy, especially in the context of advanced radiological classification systems. This study evaluates the performance of four LLMs-ChatGPT-4o, AmbossGPT, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash-in classifying fractures based on the AO classification system using CT reports. A dataset of 292 fictitious physician-generated CT reports, representing 310 fractures, was used to assess the accuracy of each LLM in AO fracture classification retrospectively. Performance was evaluated by comparing the models' classifications to ground truth labels, with accuracy rates analyzed across different fracture types and subtypes. ChatGPT-4o and AmbossGPT achieved the highest overall accuracy (74.6 and 74.3%, respectively), outperforming Claude 3.5 Sonnet (69.5%) and Gemini 2.0 Flash (62.7%). Statistically significant differences were observed in fracture type classification, particularly between ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash (Δ12%, p < 0.001). While all models demonstrated strong bone recognition rates (90-99%), their accuracy in fracture subtype classification remained lower (71-77%), indicating limitations in nuanced diagnostic categorization. LLMs show potential in assisting radiologists with initial fracture classification, particularly in high-volume or resource-limited settings. However, their performance remains inconsistent for detailed subtype classification, highlighting the need for further refinement and validation before clinical integration in advanced diagnostic workflows.

Indexed as

Fractures, BoneNatural Language ProcessingTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansLarge Language ModelsRetrospective StudiesComputer-aided diagnosisDecision supportFractureLarge language models

Identifiers

PMID40624390
PMCPMC13103119

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.