ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics
Data Extraction From Oncology Imaging Reports by Large Language Models: A Comparative Accuracy Study.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics. 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.
- From API to Action: A Multi-Model Comparison of OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta LLMs for Clinical Trial Data Extraction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeManual data extraction from clinical text is resource-intensive. Locally hosted large language models (LLMs) may offer a privacy-preserving solution, but their performance on non-English data remains unclear. We investigated whether the accuracy of locally hosted LLMs is noninferior to human accuracy when determining metastasis status and treatment response from German radiology reports.
methodsIn this retrospective comparative accuracy study, five locally hosted LLMs (llama3.3:70b, mistral-small:24b, qwq:32b, qwen3:32b, and gpt-oss:120b) were compared against humans. A ground truth was established via duplicate human extraction and adjudication of discrepancies by a senior oncologist. The study was conducted at a tertiary referral hospital in Switzerland. We randomly sampled 400 radiology reports from adult patients with cancer (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography) generated between January 2023 and May 2025 and split them into a prompt optimization set (n = 100) and test set (n = 300). Primary outcomes were noninferiority (5 percentage points [pp] margin) of LLM classification accuracy compared with human accuracy for metastasis status (presence/absence by anatomic site) and treatment response categories. Secondary outcomes included accuracy for primary tumor diagnosis and radiologic absence of tumor.
resultsThe analysis included 400 reports from 317 patients. In the test set (n = 300), the human accuracy for metastasis status was 98.4% (95% CI, 98.0 to 98.8). All LLMs were noninferior; gpt-oss:120b performed best (97.6% accuracy; difference, -0.8 pp [90% CI, -1.3 to -0.3 pp]). For response to treatment, the human accuracy was 86.0% (95% CI, 83.2 to 88.8). All LLMs were inferior; the most accurate model, gpt-oss:120b, achieved 78.3% (difference, -7.7 pp [90% CI, -11.6 to -3.8 pp]).
conclusionIn this study, LLMs were noninferior to human accuracy for classification of metastasis status but were inferior for response to treatment assessment.
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.