ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Comparing performance of seven fine-tuned open-source large language models in summarizing and predicting outcome-relevant information from mechanical thrombectomy reports in patients with acute ischemic stroke.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluates seven open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) in summarizing radiology reports of acute ischemic stroke patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy and predicting angiography-based outcome measures relevant to post-thrombectomy reperfusion. MATERIALS AND
methods2000 mechanical thrombectomy reports (findings and summarizing impression section as gold standard) were split into training set (N = 1900) for model fine-tuning and test set (N = 100). A two-step evaluation was performed: (1) Quantitative analyses of seven LLMs with metrics ROUGE-1, -2, -L, METEOR, BERTScore (F1) and BLEU comparing LLM-generated summaries against gold-standard impressions. (2) Qualitative manual evaluation of the four best-performing models by two radiologists, assessing correctness and completeness across key parameters: outcome-relevant scores, vessel information, occlusion side, number of passes, relevant additional information, hallucinations, and grammar quality. Statistical significance was assessed via a two-tailed, four-sample χ² test, followed by post hoc pairwise χ² comparisons.
resultsBioMistral-7b scored highest across most quantitative metrics (ROUGE-1: 0.47, ROUGE-2: 0.30, ROUGE-L: 0.43, METEOR: 0.46, BERTScore (F1): 0.82). Manual evaluation revealed gemma-2-9b most frequently documented pass counts (56 out of 100 cases (56%); p < 0.02 vs. Llama-3.1-8b/mistral-7b-instruct), while mistral-7b-instruct described them most often correctly (29 out of 38 mentioned passes (76.32%); p < 0.02 vs. BioMistral-7b and p < 0.01 vs. gemma-2-9b). All four manually evaluated LLMs performed moderately well in predicting "Thrombolysis-In-Cerebral-Ischemia (TICI)" Score (correctness rate ranging from 66 to 71%; p = 0.89).
conclusionAll four manually evaluated LLMs effectively summarized thrombectomy reports and demonstrated moderate accuracy predicting TICI scores. Their integration into radiology workflows could enhance efficiency, warranting further clinical validation. KEY POINTS: Question Specifically fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) can improve radiology workflow by automatically summarizing thrombectomy reports and inferring angiographic classifications from textual descriptions. Findings Fine-tuned LLMs achieve similar performance in summarizing thrombectomy reports, with each model performing best in specific categories and showing moderate accuracy in correct "Thrombolysis-In-Cerebral-Ischemia (TICI)" Score prediction (66-71%). Clinical relevance Integrating fine-tuned LLMs into radiology workflows may accelerate decision-making and improve patient outcomes by automatically summarizing reports and assessing recanalization success, while future work should enhance contextual understanding, address ambiguous inputs, and limit hallucinations.
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.