Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42035041›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2026

Fine-tuned lightweight language models for structured extraction of liver cancer imaging free-text report: a comparative analysis with existing large language models.

Yang-Di Luo, Yong Sun, Shi-Le Tang, Lu-Jun Shen, Xuxiazi Zou, Hong-Liang Zou, Hua-Lin Shen, Tong-Tong Yang, Jia-Yun Wu, Rong-Yu Lu and 5 more

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

15 authors.

Yang-Di Luo *Department of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, P. R. China.
Yong Sun *System Hub, Robotics and Autonomous Systems Thrust, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, 510080, P. R. China.
Shi-Le Tang *Department of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, P. R. China.
Lu-Jun ShenDepartment of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, P. R. China.
Xuxiazi ZouDepartment of Breast Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, P. R. China.
Hong-Liang ZouDepartment of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, 510080, P. R. China.
Hua-Lin ShenDepartment of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, P. R. China.
Tong-Tong YangDepartment of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, P. R. China.
Jia-Yun WuDepartment of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, P. R. China.
Rong-Yu LuDepartment of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, P. R. China.
Chao-Feng LiDepartment of Information, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Jin-Hua HuangDepartment of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, P. R. China.
Jing CaiDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
Yi-Quan Jiang *Department of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, P. R. China. jiangyq@sysucc.org.cn.
Ge Ren *Department of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong. gary-ge.ren@polyu.edu.hk.

Funding

Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation 2025A1515012926Health and Medical Research Fund of the Health Bureau, HKSAR 11222456Shenzhen Science and Technology Program JCYJ20230807140403007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOrganizing free-text patient data into a structured format is labor-intensive and time-consuming. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a fine-tuned lightweight language model in structuring liver cancer imaging reports.

methodsA retrospective dataset of 2,780 liver imaging reports from Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (2012–2022), including cases of primary liver cancer and benign liver disease, was collected. Three key entries—Number of Malignant Tumors (NMT), Diameter of the Largest Tumor (DLT), and Vascular Invasion (VI)—were annotated by three radiologists and subsequently reviewed and calibrated by a senior oncologist to ensure data reliability. The annotated dataset was randomly split into training, validation, and test sets at a ratio of 7:1:2. A T5-based lightweight model with 250 M parameters (Liver-T5) was fine-tuned using these data. Performance was evaluated using Accuracy and Macro-F1 metrics. Comparative analysis with LLMs such as ChatGLM4, Qianwen2.0, and Llama3.1 was conducted.

resultsThe fine-tuned Liver-T5 model outperformed larger LLMs in Exact Match (EM) rate and key evaluation metrics, achieving an EM of 0.8907 and high accuracy for NMT (0.9355) and VI (0.9910). Specifically, for NMT extraction, Liver-T5 achieved an accuracy of 0.9355, outperforming large models such as Qianwen72B (accuracy 0.9140), LLaMA3 (accuracy 0.8961), and ChatGLM4 (accuracy 0.8226). In the VI extraction, Liver-T5 achieved the highest accuracy of 0.9910, significantly surpassing other models, with Qianwen72B, LLaMA3, and ChatGLM4 achieving accuracies of 0.9606, 0.9462, and 0.7581, respectively. A higher proportion of schema-nonconforming outputs was observed in large general-purpose models (e.g., LLaMA3), while Liver-T5 more consistently generated schema-compliant predictions.

conclusionsThe fine-tuned lightweight language model demonstrates superior accuracy and efficiency in structuring liver cancer imaging reports compared to larger LLMs. This capability addresses critical challenges in clinical workflows by converting unstructured data into structured formats.

Indexed as

Liver NeoplasmsNatural Language ProcessingFemaleHumansLarge Language ModelsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesFine-tuningFree-text reportLarge language modelLightweight modelLiver cancerStructured format

Identifiers

PMID42035041
PMCPMC13130798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.