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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Academic Radiology
Academic Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
10.40%
发文量
432
审稿时长
18 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信