ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Multicenter evaluation of four large language models for automated spine imaging diagnosis.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate interpretation of spine imaging is essential for clinical decision-making, yet the diagnostic potential of large language models (LLMs) for radiological report analysis remains inadequately evaluated in terms of sample size, multi-model comparison, reproducibility, and cross-institutional generalisability. Here, we conducted a multicentre cohort study using 20,277 authentic clinical spine radiological reports from three teaching hospitals in China, systematically comparing the diagnostic performance, output consistency, and generalisability of four LLMs-GPT-4o, Claude-4, Qwen-3 Max, and DeepSeek-V3.1-across nine modality-region combinations under two input modes (with-option and without-option). All models showed high overall diagnostic performance, with specificity exceeding 90% and negative predictive value exceeding 96%. Cross-institutional validation demonstrated stable recall generalisability, with recall coefficients of variation ranging from 0.7% to 5.0%. However, performance was uneven across the disease spectrum: for low-prevalence conditions, precision declined by 19-42 percentage points, indicating a persistent long-tail diagnostic deficit. Input mode and prompt formulation also produced model-specific shifts in diagnostic behaviour. These findings suggest that LLMs may support report-based spine imaging diagnosis as clinical assistive tools, but deployment should account for disease prevalence, prompt sensitivity, and the need for domain-specific optimisation.
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.