ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Who labels best? Radiologists, rules, or large language models for CT reports on pulmonary embolism.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How green are large language models for radiology report labelling? Comparing human, rule-based and hybrid workflows.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare open-weight and proprietary large language models (LLMs), a rule-based extractor (RBE) and radiologists for labelling pulmonary embolism CT reports, and to test whether a hybrid RBE-LLM workflow improves labelling performance. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-centre retrospective study included structured CT reports from October 2021 to March 2025. Three labelling pipelines were evaluated: an RBE; a model-agnostic LLM extractor (18 open-weight, four GPT-4 variants); and a hybrid pipeline routing only RBE failures to an LLM. Ground truth was defined at the report-text level by deterministic schema matching for initially RBE-valid fields and blinded adjudication of RBE-invalid fields by two attending radiologists. Eight radiologists provided a human baseline. Outcomes included F1 scores, accuracy, LLM-based salvage of RBE failures, and labelling time.
resultsIn total, 2,923 reports from 2,923 patients (mean age 66 ± 17 years; 1,465 women) were included. Falcon3-10b and GPT-4.1-mini achieved similar item-level performance (F1 0.98 [95% CI, 0.97-0.98] for both; p = 0.70) and both exceeded the RBE (F1 0.81 [95% CI, 0.80-0.82]; p < 0.001). Salvage of RBE failures was comparable between open-weight and proprietary models (88.1% vs 91.9%; p = 0.12). The hybrid RBE-LLM workflow achieved 99.8% accuracy and F1 0.99 (0.98-0.99), exceeding both the RBE and pooled radiologists (F1 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93]; all p < 0.001).
conclusionSchema-constrained open-weight and proprietary LLMs exceeded rule-based extraction and, at the upper end of performance, matched a pooled radiologist label-transfer baseline. A rules-first, targeted LLM workflow enabled near-perfect extraction from finalised structured pulmonary embolism CT reports. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: A rules-first LLM workflow can automate high-fidelity extraction of structured CT findings from finalised radiology reports, enabling scalable, auditable, and more consistent cohort curation for clinical research, registries, and quality improvement. KEY POINTS: A hybrid rules-first workflow combining a rule-based extractor (RBE) with targeted large language model (LLM) salvage achieved the highest overall performance for labelling of pulmonary embolism CT reports (F1, 0.99; accuracy, 99.8%). The top standalone open-weight and proprietary LLMs (Falcon3-10b and GPT-4.1-mini) both exceeded the RBE and, at the upper end of performance, matched a pooled radiologist label-transfer baseline. The hybrid workflow reduced cohort-curation time from 32.2 h for radiologists to 1.0 h while reducing LLM calls by 85.6%, because the LLM was only triggered for rule-failed fields.
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.