ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026
Benchmarking 54 large language model configurations for CAD-RADS scoring: open-weight models approach human-level agreement.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) standardizes coronary CT angiography (CCTA) reporting, but not all reports contain CAD-RADS classifications. We benchmarked 54 large language model (LLM) configurations across 50 distinct models, including recent proprietary and open-weight reasoning models, for zero-shot CAD-RADS classification. We retrospectively analyzed 500 anonymized CCTA reports from four hospitals across three U.S. regions. Expert cardiovascular radiologists provided the reference standard (human inter-rater [Formula: see text]). Fifty-four model configurations (50 distinct LLMs; four configurable models tested in both thinking and non-thinking modes) spanning Llama 2 7B through recent thinking models (DeepCogito v2, Gemini 3 Pro) processed reports using identical zero-shot prompts. Performance was measured with unweighted Cohen's κ. Two LLMs met both pre-specified non-inferiority criteria ([Formula: see text] margin and entire 95% CI within the human inter-rater agreement band, [Formula: see text]-0.956): Claude 4.6 Opus ([Formula: see text], 95% CI 0.817-0.889) and the open-weight Gemma 4 31B ([Formula: see text], 95% CI 0.810-0.882), which ranked second overall. Both met the criteria at the pre-specified [Formula: see text] margin; at [Formula: see text] no model qualified. On the reports originally dictated without a CAD-RADS statement (n=343), the top models reached [Formula: see text]. Performance declined with longer thinking chains (proxy for case complexity), but thinking-mode outperformed non-thinking mode on matched difficult reports. Gemma 4 31B remained non-inferior at 3-bit quantization and fits on a 24 GB consumer GPU. Current LLMs extract the CAD-RADS stenosis severity category from unstructured CCTA reports with agreement approaching the human inter-rater band, without task-specific training. Our data shows the remarkable rise of open models. A 31B open-weight model matched top proprietary systems and runs on consumer GPUs, enabling privacy-preserving local deployment for clinical data mining.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42530821What 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.