ArticleScientific reports2026
Transforming free-text coronary angiography reports into structured, analyzable data using large language models.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- From Innovation to Impact: The CREATE Framework as a Blueprint for Large Language Model Adoption in Opioid Treatment Programs.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Automated Identification of Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention from Cardiac Catheterization Reports using Large Language Models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Coronary angiography (CAG) reports contain many details about coronary anatomy, lesion characteristics, and interventional procedures. However, their free-text format limits their research utility. Therefore, we sought to develop and validate a framework leveraging large language models (LLMs) to convert CAG reports automatically into a standardized structured format. Using 50 CAG reports from a tertiary hospital, we developed a multi-step framework to standardize and extract key information from CAG reports. First, a standard annotation schema was developed by cardiologists. Thereafter, an LLM (GPT-4o) converted the free-text CAG reports into the hierarchical annotation schema in a standardized format. Finally, clinically relevant information was extracted from the standardized schema. One hundred CAG reports from each of two hospitals were used for internal and external test, respectively. The 12 key information points included four CAG-related (previous stent information, lesion characteristics, and anatomical diagnosis) and eight percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related key points (complex PCI criteria and current stent information). For internal test, two interventional cardiologists independently extracted information, with discrepancies resolved through consensus, as reference standard. Based on the reference standard, the proposed framework demonstrated superior accuracy for CAG-related (99.5% vs. 91.8%; p < 0.001) and comparable accuracy for PCI-related key points (98.3% vs. 97.4%; p = 0.512) in the internal test. External test confirmed high accuracy for both CAG- (96.2%) and PCI-related key points (99.4%). This framework demonstrated excellent accuracy in standardizing free-text CAG reports, potentially enabling more efficient utilization of detailed clinical data for cardiovascular research.
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.