Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40971916›Full record

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.

Omer Faruk Dilbaz, Muhammet Nusret Ozates, Beyza Bolat, Cigdem Gunduz-Demir, Ibrahim Kulac

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Omer Faruk DilbazDepartment of Pathology, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Health Application and Research Center, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-5466-1344
Muhammet Nusret OzatesDepartment of Computer Engineering, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0009-0004-7610-8816
Beyza BolatSchool of Medicine, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0009-0001-0996-7571
Cigdem Gunduz-DemirDepartment of Computer Engineering, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-0724-1942
Ibrahim KulacKUIS AI Center, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-2003-7567

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

LanguagePathology, SurgicalHumansTurkeydata extractionGPT-4oLLMpathology

Identifiers

PMID40971916
PMCPMC12629874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.