Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41965564›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2026

Evaluation of large language models for VI-RADS reports: a comparative analysis of zero-shot and few-shot prompting.

Ahmet Halis, Deniz Celiker

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical imaging, 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

2 authors.

Ahmet HalisDepartment of Urology, Yedikule Chest Diseases and Thoracic Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Kazlıçeşme Neighborhood, Belgrat Kapı Yolu Street No:1, Istanbul, Turkey. dr.ahmethls@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3460-9124
Deniz CelikerDepartment of Radiology, Acıbadem University Atasehir Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0001-9152-5600

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAccurate preoperative staging is vital in bladder cancer management, particularly for assessing muscle invasion. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) combined with the Vesical Imaging–Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) offers a non-invasive and standardized approach for tumor stratification. However, inter-observer variability among radiologists remains a significant limitation. This study investigates the performance of three large language models (LLMs)—ChatGPT (OpenAI; GPT-5.2), Gemini (Google; Gemini 2.0), and Copilot (Microsoft; Copilot based on GPT-5 architecture)—in classifying bladder lesions according to VI-RADS using zero-shot and few-shot prompting strategies. MATERIALS AND

methodsA synthetic dataset of 100 simulated bladder cancer cases was developed from expert-crafted synthetic radiology reports based on structured text descriptors and expert consensus, comprising 20 cases for each VI-RADS category (1–5). Each case included structured imaging descriptors aligned with VI-RADS scoring criteria. The LLMs were evaluated under zero-shot (no examples provided) and few-shot (with illustrative examples) prompting conditions. Performance metrics included accuracy, macro F1 scores, and Cohen’s kappa, with statistical significance assessed using McNemar’s test.

resultsFew-shot prompting significantly improved the classification performance of ChatGPT (OpenAI; GPT-5.2) (accuracy: 94%, F1: 0.939) and Gemini (Google; Gemini 2.0) (accuracy: 83%, F1: 0.823) compared to zero-shot. In contrast, Copilot (Microsoft; Copilot based on GPT-5 architecture)‘s accuracy (53%) and F1 score (0.503) declined under few-shot conditions. ChatGPT (OpenAI; GPT-5.2) demonstrated the highest consistency in identifying high-risk lesions (VI-RADS 4–5), followed by Gemini (Google; Gemini 2.0).

conclusionFew-shot prompting enhances LLM performance in VI-RADS classification, particularly for ChatGPT (OpenAI; GPT-5.2) and Gemini (Google; Gemini 2.0). These findings highlight the potential of AI tools to support radiological decision-making in bladder cancer staging. Further studies using real imaging data and explainable AI are warranted.

Indexed as

Large Language ModelsMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingRadiology Information SystemsUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansNeoplasm StagingArtificial intelligence in radiologyBladder cancerFew-shot learningLarge language models (LLMs)VI-RADS

Identifiers

PMID41965564
PMCPMC13191856

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.