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.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
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
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.