ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Detecting temporal clinical change in sequential chest radiography reports: a multi-model and multi-prompt evaluation of large language models.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radiology reports contain critical information for monitoring patients' clinical progress and evaluating treatment outcomes. Sequential radiological images are particularly valuable, providing not only current findings but also comparative assessments against previous reports. Automatically detecting temporal changes between free-text reports remains a significant challenge in Natural Language Processing. Methods: This study evaluated the performance of Large Language Models in detecting temporal novelty using the LUNGUAGE dataset, which contains sequential chest radiography reports. The comparative multi-model and multi-prompt evaluation was carried out on a fixed, class-stratified subset of 1,500 of these examples. Seven language models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google Gemini were tested across five prompt strategies: zero-shot, few-shot, structured reasoning, memory-augmented, and temporal graph prompting. Each model classified target findings as new, improved, worsened, stable, or resolved by evaluating current and previous reports together. Performance was measured using accuracy, macro-F1, weighted-F1, and class-based metrics. The "new" class was analyzed separately due to its clinical importance. Model errors were categorized into clinically interpretable types, including missed new findings, missed resolved findings, temporal errors, and change direction errors. Bootstrap confidence intervals and paired McNemar significance tests assessed performance uncertainty. Results: GPT-4.1 emerged as the top-performing model. Its few-shot prompt strategy achieved the best results: 0.8369 accuracy, 0.7888 macro-F1, 0.8322 weighted-F1, and 0.5385 recall for the "new" class. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate that Large Language Models hold substantial promise for temporal clinical reasoning in sequential radiology reports, and that performance depends not only on model architecture but also on prompt strategy and the class being evaluated.
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.