ArticleAmerican journal of clinical pathology2025
Systematic comparison of GPT models for the analysis of pathology reports in a low-resource language: A case study for Turkish.
Article in American journal of clinical pathology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLarge language models (LLMs) can process text for various applications, including surgical pathology reports, but studies primarily focus on English. Their performance has not been systematically studied for a low-resource language. To analyze the performance of various LLMs, 759 Turkish pathology reports from 5 different procedures were selected.
methodsWe used 10 examples from every procedure to optimize prompts for OpenAI's GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o mini, and GPT-4o. The rest was used to test generalizability.
resultsThe GPT-4o model performed superior in processing Turkish reports (12%-25% over GPT-3.5 Turbo, 3%-16% over GPT-4o mini). English-translated versions of the reports have been demonstrated to enhance accuracy, especially for GPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4o mini. GPT4-o showed comparable results for Turkish and English. A 12% to 22% performance gap was observed between GPT-4o and GPT-3.5 Turbo for English-translated reports. Domain-related tips in prompts increased accuracy. Results of larger test sets were parallel for all models with the validation set. The GPT-4o model yielded the most accurate results, while the GPT-4o mini model demonstrated intermediate performance. The GPT-3.5 Turbo model exhibited the least accuracy.
conclusionsTo our knowledge, for the first time in the literature, we have demonstrated the performance of GPT models in Turkish surgical pathology reports, and results indicate that data extracted by GPT-4o are almost ready for direct application.
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.