Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41927819›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026

Automated Clinical Information Extraction from Diagnostic and Nondiagnostic Radiology Reports Using Modern Language Models.

Benjamin G Mittman, Giana D'Aleo, Michael B Rothberg, Nicholas J Casacchia, Samer Albahra

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 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

5 authors.

Benjamin G MittmanMedical Scientist Training Program, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA. bg.mittman@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7721-5822
Giana D'AleoCenter for Diagnostics and Artificial Intelligence, Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Michael B RothbergCenter for Value-Based Care Research, Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Primary Care Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Nicholas J CasacchiaCenter for Value-Based Care Research, Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Primary Care Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Samer AlbahraCenter for Diagnostics and Artificial Intelligence, Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Funding

Medical Scientist Training Program at Case Western Reserve UniversityT32GM152319 · NIGMS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI Heather Broihier, Alex Yee-Chen Huang · 2024 to 2026
$5.1M
NIH HHS 5TL1TR002549-04NIH HHS T32GM152319
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our objective was to automate the extraction of clinical diagnoses from diagnostic and nondiagnostic radiology reports using modern language models and structured electronic health record (EHR) data. We selected venous thromboembolism (VTE) as our use case for which imaging is the gold standard but is not always fully diagnostic. We extracted venous duplex, computed tomography, and ventilation-perfusion scan reports from the Cleveland Clinic EHR system for patients admitted 2011-2020. Report ground truths were positive, negative, or nondiagnostic. We compared multiple large language models (LLMs) and bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) models on multiclass classification in holdout evaluation sets. Error analysis guided iterative LLM prompt design and maximized the detection of nondiagnostic reports. ICD-10 codes and therapeutic anticoagulation data were used to adjudicate VTE diagnoses for patients with nondiagnostic reports. We identified 82,476 radiology reports among 213,724 patients. Across models, multiclass areas under the receiver operating characteristics and precision-recall curves ranged from 0.83 to 0.96 and 0.57 to 0.94. The most accurate model, Llama-3.3, detected 95% of VTE-positive reports with a precision of 99.6% and detected 87% of nondiagnostic reports with a precision of 88%. The positive detection rate increased to 98% when we paired structured EHR variables with minimal chart review (0.7% of the evaluation set) to adjudicate diagnoses for patients with nondiagnostic reports. In summary, Llama-3.3 was highly sensitive and specific for positive VTE diagnoses and nondiagnostic radiology reports. We integrated an LLM, structured EHR variables, and limited chart review for successful management of diagnostic uncertainty in automated information extraction from radiology reports.

Indexed as

Diagnostic uncertaintyInformation extractionLarge language modelNatural language processingRadiology reportVenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID41927819

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.