Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40847080›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Intra-axial primary brain tumor differentiation: comparing large language models on structured MRI reports vs. radiologists on images.

Takeshi Nakaura, Hiroyuki Uetani, Naofumi Yoshida, Naoki Kobayashi, Yasunori Nagayama, Masafumi Kidoh, Jun-Ichiro Kuroda, Akitake Mukasa, Toshinori Hirai

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Takeshi NakauraDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan. kff00712@nifty.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9010-0341
Hiroyuki UetaniDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.
Naofumi YoshidaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.
Naoki KobayashiDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.
Yasunori NagayamaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.
Masafumi KidohDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.
Jun-Ichiro KurodaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.
Akitake MukasaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.
Toshinori HiraiDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAimed to evaluate the potential of large language models (LLMs) in differentiating intra-axial primary brain tumors using structured magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports and compare their performance with radiologists. MATERIALS AND

methodsStructured reports of preoperative MRI findings from 137 surgically confirmed intra-axial primary brain tumors, including Glioblastoma (n = 77), Central Nervous System (CNS) Lymphoma (n = 22), Astrocytoma (n = 9), Oligodendroglioma (n = 9), and others (n = 20), were analyzed by multiple LLMs, including GPT-4, Claude-3-Opus, Claude-3-Sonnet, GPT-3.5, Llama-2-70B, Qwen1.5-72B, and Gemini-Pro-1.0. The models provided the top 5 differential diagnoses based on the preoperative MRI findings, and their top 1, 3, and 5 accuracies were compared with board-certified neuroradiologists' interpretations of the actual preoperative MRI images.

resultsRadiologists achieved top 1, 3, and 5 accuracies of 85.4%, 94.9%, and 94.9%, respectively. Among the LLMs, GPT-4 performed best with top 1, 3, and 5 accuracies of 65.7%, 84.7%, and 90.5%, respectively. Notably, GPT-4's top 3 accuracy of 84.7% approached the radiologists' top 1 accuracy of 85.4%. Other LLMs showed varying performance levels, with average accuracies ranging from 62.3% to 75.9%. LLMs demonstrated high accuracy for Glioblastoma but struggled with CNS Lymphoma and other less common tumors, particularly in top 1 accuracy.

conclusionLLMs show promise as assistive tools for differentiating intra-axial primary brain tumors using structured MRI reports. However, a significant gap remains between their performance and that of board-certified neuroradiologists interpreting actual images. The choice of LLM and tumor type significantly influences the results. KEY POINTS: Question How do Large Language Models (LLM) perform when differentiating complex intra-axial primary brain tumors from structured MRI reports compared to radiologists interpreting images? Findings Radiologists outperformed all tested LLMs in diagnostic accuracy. The best model, GPT-4, showed promise but lagged considerably behind radiologists, particularly for less common tumors. Clinical relevance LLMs show potential as assistive tools for generating differential diagnoses from structured MRI reports, particularly for non-specialists, but they cannot currently replace the nuanced diagnostic expertise of a board-certified radiologist interpreting the primary image data.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLarge Language ModelsMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdultAgedDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRadiologistsRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceBrain tumorsLarge language modelsMagnetic resonance imagingStructured reports

Identifiers

PMID40847080
PMCPMC12953250

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.