Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41831028›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Comparison of proprietary and fine-tuned large language models for multi-label classification of billing codes from radiology reports.

Kamyar Arzideh, Henning Schäfer, Ahmad Idrissi-Yaghir, Bahadir Eryilmaz, Sina Warmer, Eva Maria Hartmann, Katarzyna Borys, Cynthia Sabrina Schmidt, Johannes Haubold, Lale Umutlu and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Kamyar ArzidehCentral IT Department, Data Integration Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. kamyar.arzideh@uk-essen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-6074-804X
Henning SchäferInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Ahmad Idrissi-YaghirInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Bahadir EryilmazInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Sina WarmerInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Eva Maria HartmannCentral IT Department, Data Integration Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Katarzyna BorysInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Cynthia Sabrina SchmidtInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Johannes HauboldInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Lale UmutluInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Michael ForstingInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Felix NensaInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
René HoschInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWhile large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in medical text analysis, their application in automated medical billing code extraction remains underexplored, particularly for the German medical fee schedule system (GOÄ). Therefore, an LLM was fine-tuned to perform multi-label classification of GOÄ codes from radiology reports automatically, and its performance was compared with state-of-the-art commercial and open-source LLMs. MATERIALS AND

methodsFollowing ethics committee approval, we analyzed 499,601 radiology reports from 124,497 patients, containing 1,799,971 manually identified GOÄ codes as ground truth. The MediPhi-Instruct 4B model was fine-tuned using five-fold cross-validation. Performance was evaluated on the hold-out test set and compared against GPT-5, GPT-4.1, GPT-oss, Kimi-K2, Deepseek-R1, Deepseek-V3, Gemini 2.5, Llama-70B, and Qwen-3 LLMs on a subset of 500 anonymized and 350 cleaned reports using zero-shot and few-shot prompting techniques.

resultsThe fine-tuned model achieved an accuracy of 77.15% ± 0.47% and a micro-average F1-score of 87.79% ± 0.31% on the hold-out test set. On a subset of 500 real-world samples, our models outperformed the best-performing LLM, Gemini 2.5 Flash, with an F1-score of 70.32% ± 1.54% compared to 58.22% ± 1.50% (p < 0.001). For the cleaned dataset of 350 samples, GPT-5 achieved the best F1-score of 89.51 ± 1.52% and outperformed the fine-tuned models (p < 0.001).

conclusionsFine-tuned LLMs can effectively automate GOÄ code classification from radiology reports, with the potential of outperforming commercial LLMs. This approach shows promise for improving billing efficiency and accuracy in healthcare settings, though manual verification is still recommended. KEY POINTS: Question LLMs with high parameters possess medical knowledge, but how effective are they at predicting billing codes from radiology reports compared to smaller, fine-tuned models? Finidngs A fine-tuned ensemble model achieved competitive results and can outperform larger, proprietary LLMs. Clinical relevance Smaller, fine-tuned models offer an efficient alternative to proprietary LLMs in generating billing codes and can be integrated to assist clinical coding. This technology has the potential to transform clinical billing procedures, but its use should be overseen by qualified professional personnel.

Indexed as

Large Language ModelsRadiology Information SystemsGermanyHumansNatural Language ProcessingFine-tuningGebührenordnung für Ärzte (GOÄ)Large language modelsNatural language processingRadiology billing

Identifiers

PMID41831028
PMCPMC13341730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.