ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Performance of large language models in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant biliary stricture.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Distinguishing benign from malignant biliary strictures remains challenging. Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in enhancing diagnostic accuracy. This study aimed to evaluate the performances of ten LLMs in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant biliary strictures. Methods: Consecutive patients with biliary strictures undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) at Xijing Hospital between January and December 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Ten LLMs were systematically prompted with standardized clinical, laboratory, and imaging data. Performance was compared against tumor markers (CA19-9, CEA), a new multivariable clinical model, and ten independent pancreaticobiliary exoerienced physicians. Subgroup analyses assessed hilar (n=29) versus non-hilar strictures. Gold-standard diagnosis relied on histopathology and ≥3-month follow-up. Results: Among the 159 included patients (83 benign, 76 malignant), four LLMs (Kimi, Deepseek-R1, Claude-3.5S, Llama-3.1), the clinical model (AUC:0.83), and six physicians achieved >80% accuracy. Kimi demonstrated superior accuracy (87%), significantly outperforming 70% of physicians (7/10, p<0.01). Three other LLMs (Deepseek-R1:83%, Claude-3.5S:82%, Llama-3.1:81%) and the clinical model performed comparably to physicians (78-84%, p>0.05), collectively surpassing tumor markers (CA19-9 accuracy:66%, CEA:71%). Physicians demonstrated higher accuracy for hilar strictures (87% vs. 79% for non-hilar, p<0.001). LLMs showed similar performance across stricture locations (hilar:64-95%; non-hilar:62-88%, p>0.05). For hilar strictures, 7/10 physicians achieved significantly higher accuracy (87-90%) than 8/10 LLMs (64-84%, p<0.05). Conclusions: Using clinical, lab, and imaging data, some LLMs achieved diagnostic accuracy comparable to or exceeding clinical models and experienced physicians for differentiating benign versus malignant strictures. However, for hilar strictures, LLM performance was inferior to over half of the physicians.
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.