ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Open LLM-based actionable incidental finding extraction from [
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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.
- Multi-reader, multi-model benchmark of large language models for modified Outerbridge cartilage grading from knee MRI reports.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence in lung cancer care: current applications, challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We developed an open, large language model (LLM)-based pipeline to extract actionable incidental findings (AIFs) from [ Methods: Training, validation, and test datasets of 1,999, 248, and 250 lung cancer [ Results: The pipeline achieved document-level F1 scores of 0.917 ± 0.016 and 0.79 ± 0.025 on the internal and external test datasets. At the sentence-level, F1 scores of 0.754 ± 0.011 and 0.522 ± 0.012 were recorded, and qualitative analysis demonstrated even higher practical utility. This qualitative analysis revealed how sentence-level performance is better in practice. Discussion: Llama-3.1-8B Instruct was the base LLM that provided the best combination of performance and computational efficiency. The utilisation of CoT prompting improved performance further. Radiology reporting characteristics such as length and style affect model generalisation. Conclusion: We find that a QLoRA-adapted LLM utilising CoT prompting successfully extracts AIF information at both document- and sentence-level from both internal and external PET-CT reports. We believe this model can assist with short-term clinical challenges like clinical alerts and reminders, and long-term tasks like investigating comorbidities.
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.