ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2026
Accuracy and reproducibility of large language model measurements of liver metastases: comparison with radiologist measurements.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the accuracy and reproducibility of lesion-diameter measurements performed by three state-of-the-art LLMs with those obtained by radiologists. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study using a public database, 83 patients with solitary colorectal-cancer liver metastases were identified. From each CT series, a radiologist extracted the single axial slice showing the maximal tumor diameter and converted it to a 512 × 512-pixel PNG image (window level 50 HU, window width 400 HU) with pixel size encoded in the filename. Three LLMs-ChatGPT-o3 (OpenAI), Gemini 2.5 Pro (Google), and Claude 4 Opus (Anthropic)-were prompted to estimate the longest lesion diameter twice, ≥ 1 week apart. Two board-certified radiologists (12 years' experience each) independently measured the same single slice images and one radiologist repeated the measurements after ≥ 1 week. Agreement was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); 95% confidence intervals were obtained by bootstrap resampling (5 000 iterations).
resultsRadiologist inter-observer agreement was excellent (ICC = 0.95, 95% CI 0.86-0.99); intra-observer agreement was 0.98 (95% CI 0.94-0.99). Gemini achieved good model-to-radiologist agreement (ICC = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.89) and intra-model reproducibility (ICC = 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.87). GPT-o3 showed moderate agreement (ICC = 0.52) and poor reproducibility (ICC = 0.25); Claude showed poor agreement (ICC = 0.07) and reproducibility (ICC = 0.47).
conclusionLLMs do not yet match radiologists in measuring colorectal cancer liver metastasis; however, Gemini's good agreement and reproducibility highlight the rapid progress of image interpretation capability of LLMs.
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.