ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Comparative Evaluation of Proprietary and Open-Source Large Language Models for Systematic Multi-source Information Extraction in Interventional Oncology.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2026. 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.
- Zero-Shot Classification of Postoperative Complications From Real-World Discharge Letters According to the Clavien-Dindo System Using Large Language Models in Liver Surgery: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Invited Commentary on Comparative Evaluation of Proprietary and Open-Source Large Language Models for Systematic Multi-source Information Extraction in Interventional Oncology.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare proprietary (GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro) and open-source (Llama 3.1 70B, Llama 3.1 405B) large language models (LLMs) for extracting clinically relevant variables from transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) reports in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
methodsRetrospective analysis of 556 anonymized longitudinal TACE-related reports (radiology, interventional procedure, and clinical follow-up) from 50 patients with HCC treated between 2012 and 2024 at a single tertiary center was carried out. Models extracted predefined binary variables (e.g., modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [mRECIST] tumor response, alpha-fetoprotein [AFP] dynamics, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC] stage) and ordinal variables (e.g., liver segment involvement, vascular invasion, follow-up assessment) using a standardized system prompt and output template. Model performance was assessed by accuracy, ordinal scores, and longitudinal error rates using mixed-effects regression with patient-level random intercepts.
resultsProprietary models outperformed open-source models. GPT-4o and Gemini achieved the highest mean accuracies for binary variables (0.87 ± 0.21 and 0.85 ± 0.16) and ordinal variables (4.15/5 and 4.10/5), significantly exceeding both Llama models (p < 0.05). GPT-4o showed the lowest longitudinal error rate for binary variables (0.01 vs 0.09-0.21 for the other models), indicating greater robustness over time. All models showed poor performance in vascular invasion detection and follow-up assessment.
conclusionProprietary LLMs can accurately extract most key TACE-related variables from routine clinical reports and may support decision-making in interventional oncology; however, all models showed poor performance in vascular invasion detection and follow-up assessment, so expert human oversight remains essential.
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.