Enhancing Oncological Surveillance Through Large Language Model-Assisted Analysis: A Comparative Study of GPT-4 and Gemini in Evaluating Oncological Issues From Serial Abdominal CT Scan Reports.
IF 3.8 2区 医学Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Na Yeon Han, Keewon Shin, Min Ju Kim, Beom Jin Park, Ki Choon Sim, Yeo Eun Han, Deuk Jae Sung, Jae Woong Choi, Suk Keu Yeom
{"title":"Enhancing Oncological Surveillance Through Large Language Model-Assisted Analysis: A Comparative Study of GPT-4 and Gemini in Evaluating Oncological Issues From Serial Abdominal CT Scan Reports.","authors":"Na Yeon Han, Keewon Shin, Min Ju Kim, Beom Jin Park, Ki Choon Sim, Yeo Eun Han, Deuk Jae Sung, Jae Woong Choi, Suk Keu Yeom","doi":"10.1016/j.acra.2024.10.050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale and objectives: </strong>We aimed to compare the capabilities of two leading large language models (LLMs), GPT-4 and Gemini, in analyzing serial radiology reports, to highlight oncological issues that require further clinical attention.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This study included 205 patients, each with two consecutive radiological reports. We designed a prompt comprising a three-step task to analyze report findings using LLMs. To establish a ground truth, two radiologists reached a consensus on a six-level categorization, comprising tumor findings (categorized as improved, stable, or aggravated), \"benign\", \"no tumor description,\" and \"other malignancy.\" The performance of GPT-4 and Gemini was then compared based on their ability to match corresponding findings between two radiological reports and accurately reflect these categories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In terms of accuracy in matching findings between serial reports, the proportion of correctly matched findings was significantly higher for GPT-4 (96.2%) than for Gemini (91.7%) (P < 0.01). For oncological issue identification, the precision for tumor-related finding determinations, recall, and F1-scores were 0.68 and 0.63 (P = 0.006), 0.91 and 0.80 (P < 0.001), and 0.78 and 0.70 for GPT-4 and Gemini, respectively. GPT-4 was more accurate than Gemini in determining the correct tumor status for tumor-related findings (P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrated the potential of LLM-assisted analysis of serial radiology reports in enhancing oncological surveillance, using a carefully engineered prompt. GPT-4 showed superior performance compared to Gemini in matching corresponding findings, identifying tumor-related findings, and accurately determining tumor status.</p>","PeriodicalId":50928,"journal":{"name":"Academic Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.10.050","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Rationale and objectives: We aimed to compare the capabilities of two leading large language models (LLMs), GPT-4 and Gemini, in analyzing serial radiology reports, to highlight oncological issues that require further clinical attention.
Materials and methods: This study included 205 patients, each with two consecutive radiological reports. We designed a prompt comprising a three-step task to analyze report findings using LLMs. To establish a ground truth, two radiologists reached a consensus on a six-level categorization, comprising tumor findings (categorized as improved, stable, or aggravated), "benign", "no tumor description," and "other malignancy." The performance of GPT-4 and Gemini was then compared based on their ability to match corresponding findings between two radiological reports and accurately reflect these categories.
Results: In terms of accuracy in matching findings between serial reports, the proportion of correctly matched findings was significantly higher for GPT-4 (96.2%) than for Gemini (91.7%) (P < 0.01). For oncological issue identification, the precision for tumor-related finding determinations, recall, and F1-scores were 0.68 and 0.63 (P = 0.006), 0.91 and 0.80 (P < 0.001), and 0.78 and 0.70 for GPT-4 and Gemini, respectively. GPT-4 was more accurate than Gemini in determining the correct tumor status for tumor-related findings (P < 0.001).
Conclusion: This study demonstrated the potential of LLM-assisted analysis of serial radiology reports in enhancing oncological surveillance, using a carefully engineered prompt. GPT-4 showed superior performance compared to Gemini in matching corresponding findings, identifying tumor-related findings, and accurately determining tumor status.
期刊介绍:
Academic Radiology publishes original reports of clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, image-guided interventions and related techniques. It also includes brief technical reports describing original observations, techniques, and instrumental developments; state-of-the-art reports on clinical issues, new technology and other topics of current medical importance; meta-analyses; scientific studies and opinions on radiologic education; and letters to the Editor.