ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Multi-reader, multi-model benchmark of large language models for modified Outerbridge cartilage grading from knee MRI reports.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe a reproducible framework for bulk large language model (LLM)-based extraction of structured cartilage-lesion data from knee MRI reports and to benchmark seven LLM configurations against multiple radiologists using the modified Outerbridge classification. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this IRB-approved retrospective study, 100 non-contrast knee MRI reports (January 2019 to January 2025) were randomly selected from 66,479 eligible examinations and independently graded by five readers (four fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists with 6-21 years of post-fellowship experience and one fourth-year resident) and seven LLM configurations, comprising six Azure OpenAI deployments (GPT-4.1, GPT-5.1-mini, GPT-5.3, GPT-5.4, GPT-5.4-mini, GPT-5.4-nano) and one locally hosted open-weight model (Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct), across a fixed 20-surface anatomic taxonomy. Pairwise Cohen quadratic-weighted κ was computed at compartment and surface levels. Bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values on the paired difference between each rater's mean κ and the human-human reference were derived by case-level cluster resampling (B = 1000).
resultsMean human-human κ was 0.94 (95% CI 0.93, 0.95) at the compartment level and 0.80 (95% CI 0.78, 0.83) at the surface level. Three Azure deployments-GPT-5.4 (surface κ = 0.83), GPT-5.3 (κ = 0.80), and GPT-5.1-mini (κ = 0.77)-had 95% CIs on the difference from the human reference that included zero. Four models had CIs entirely below zero, indicating agreement significantly below the human reference: GPT-4.1, GPT-5.4-mini, Qwen2.5-32B, and GPT-5.4-nano (all p ≤ .02).
conclusionThree flagship OpenAI deployments achieved cartilage grading agreement indistinguishable from human inter-rater variability, while cost-optimized and open-weight variants performed measurably below.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42611194What 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.