ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
Digitalizing English-language CT Interpretation for Positive Haemorrhage Evaluation Reporting: the DECIPHER study.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIdentifying whether there is a traumatic intracranial bleed (ICB+) on head CT is critical for clinical care and research. Free text CT reports are unstructured and therefore must undergo time-consuming manual review. Existing artificial intelligence classification schemes are not optimised for the emergency department endpoint of classification of ICB+ or ICB-. We sought to assess three methods for classifying CT reports: a text classification (TC) programme, a commercial natural language processing programme (Clinithink) and a generative pretrained transformer large language model (Digitalizing English-language CT Interpretation for Positive Haemorrhage Evaluation Reporting (DECIPHER)-LLM).
methodsPrimary objective: determine the diagnostic classification performance of the dichotomous categorisation of each of the three approaches. SECONDARY
objectivedetermine whether the LLM could achieve a substantial reduction in CT report review workload while maintaining 100% sensitivity.Anonymised radiology reports of head CT scans performed for trauma were manually labelled as ICB+/-. Training and validation sets were randomly created to train the TC and natural language processing models. Prompts were written to train the LLM.
results898 reports were manually labelled. Sensitivity and specificity (95% CI)) of TC, Clinithink and DECIPHER-LLM (with probability of ICB set at 10%) were respectively 87.9% (76.7% to 95.0%) and 98.2% (96.3% to 99.3%), 75.9% (62.8% to 86.1%) and 96.2% (93.8% to 97.8%) and 100% (93.8% to 100%) and 97.4% (95.3% to 98.8%).With DECIPHER-LLM probability of ICB+ threshold of 10% set to identify CT reports requiring manual evaluation, CT reports requiring manual classification reduced by an estimated 385/449 cases (85.7% (95% CI 82.1% to 88.9%)) while maintaining 100% sensitivity. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionDECIPHER-LLM outperformed other tested free-text classification methods.
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.