ArticleJAMIA open2025
A comparative performance analysis of regular expressions and a large language model-based approach to extract the BI-RADS score from radiological reports.
Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Verification of the impact of differences between objective and subjective evaluation methods on the interpretation of artificial intelligence systems generating mammogram reports using vision-language model.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Automated PROMISE V2 Scoring from PSMA PET/CT Reports Using Large Language Models: A Comparative Evaluation of Prompt Design and Model Performance.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Different natural language processing (NLP) techniques have demonstrated promising results for data extraction from radiological reports. Both traditional rule-based methods like regular expressions (Regex) and modern large language models (LLMs) can extract structured information. However, comparison between these approaches for extraction of specific radiological data elements has not been widely conducted. Methods: We compared accuracy and processing time between Regex and LLM-based approaches for extracting Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) scores from 7764 radiology reports (mammography, ultrasound, MRI [magnetic resonance imaging], and biopsy). We developed a rule-based algorithm using Regex patterns and implemented an LLM-based extraction using the Rombos-LLM-V2.6-Qwen-14b model. A ground truth dataset of 199 manually classified reports was used for evaluation. Results: We did not detect a statistically significant difference in the accuracy in extracting BI-RADS scores between Regex and an LLM-based method (accuracy of 89.20% for Regex vs 87.69% for the LLM-based method; Conclusion: For structured, standardized data like BI-RADS, traditional NLP techniques seem to be superior, though future work should explore hybrid approaches combining Regex precision for standardized elements with LLM contextual understanding for more complex information extraction tasks.
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.