Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models for Translating Radiology Reports into Hindi.

IF 0.9 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging Pub Date : 2024-09-04 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0044-1789618
Amit Gupta, Ashish Rastogi, Hema Malhotra, Krithika Rangarajan
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models for Translating Radiology Reports into Hindi.","authors":"Amit Gupta, Ashish Rastogi, Hema Malhotra, Krithika Rangarajan","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1789618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective</b>  The aim of this study was to compare the performance of four publicly available large language models (LLMs)-GPT-4o, GPT-4, Gemini, and Claude Opus-in translating radiology reports into simple Hindi. <b>Materials and Methods</b>  In this retrospective study, 100 computed tomography (CT) scan report impressions were gathered from a tertiary care cancer center. Reference translations of these impressions into simple Hindi were done by a bilingual radiology staff in consultation with a radiologist. Two distinct prompts were used to assess the LLMs' ability to translate these report impressions into simple Hindi. Translated reports were assessed by a radiologist for instances of misinterpretation, omission, and addition of fictitious information. Translation quality was assessed using Bilingual Evaluation Understudy (BLEU), Metric for Evaluation of Translation with Explicit ORdering (METEOR), Translation Edit Rate (TER), and character F-score (CHRF) scores. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the LLM performance across prompts. <b>Results</b>  Nine instances of misinterpretation and two instances of omission of information were found on radiologist evaluation of the total 800 LLM-generated translated report impressions. For prompt 1, Gemini outperformed others in BLEU ( <i>p</i>  < 0.001) and METEOR scores ( <i>p</i>  = 0.001), and was superior to GPT-4o and GPT-4 in TER and CHRF ( <i>p</i>  < 0.001), but comparable to Claude ( <i>p</i>  = 0.501 for TER and <i>p</i>  = 0.90 for CHRF). For prompt 2, GPT-4o outperformed all others ( <i>p</i>  < 0.001) in all metrics. Prompt 2 yielded better BLEU, METEOR, and CHRF scores ( <i>p</i>  < 0.001), while prompt 1 had a better TER score ( <i>p</i>  < 0.001). <b>Conclusion</b>  While each LLM's effectiveness varied with prompt wording, all models demonstrated potential in translating and simplifying radiology report impressions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51597,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging","volume":"35 1","pages":"88-96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11651845/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1789618","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective  The aim of this study was to compare the performance of four publicly available large language models (LLMs)-GPT-4o, GPT-4, Gemini, and Claude Opus-in translating radiology reports into simple Hindi. Materials and Methods  In this retrospective study, 100 computed tomography (CT) scan report impressions were gathered from a tertiary care cancer center. Reference translations of these impressions into simple Hindi were done by a bilingual radiology staff in consultation with a radiologist. Two distinct prompts were used to assess the LLMs' ability to translate these report impressions into simple Hindi. Translated reports were assessed by a radiologist for instances of misinterpretation, omission, and addition of fictitious information. Translation quality was assessed using Bilingual Evaluation Understudy (BLEU), Metric for Evaluation of Translation with Explicit ORdering (METEOR), Translation Edit Rate (TER), and character F-score (CHRF) scores. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the LLM performance across prompts. Results  Nine instances of misinterpretation and two instances of omission of information were found on radiologist evaluation of the total 800 LLM-generated translated report impressions. For prompt 1, Gemini outperformed others in BLEU ( p  < 0.001) and METEOR scores ( p  = 0.001), and was superior to GPT-4o and GPT-4 in TER and CHRF ( p  < 0.001), but comparable to Claude ( p  = 0.501 for TER and p  = 0.90 for CHRF). For prompt 2, GPT-4o outperformed all others ( p  < 0.001) in all metrics. Prompt 2 yielded better BLEU, METEOR, and CHRF scores ( p  < 0.001), while prompt 1 had a better TER score ( p  < 0.001). Conclusion  While each LLM's effectiveness varied with prompt wording, all models demonstrated potential in translating and simplifying radiology report impressions.

将放射学报告翻译成印地语的大型语言模型的比较评价。
目的本研究的目的是比较四种公开的大型语言模型(LLMs)——gpt - 40、GPT-4、Gemini和Claude opus——在将放射学报告翻译成简单的北印度语方面的表现。材料与方法在本回顾性研究中,收集了来自三级保健癌症中心的100例CT扫描报告印象。参考翻译这些印象成简单的印地语是由双语放射科工作人员在咨询放射科医生。两个不同的提示被用来评估法学硕士将这些报告印象翻译成简单的印地语的能力。翻译后的报告由放射科医生进行评估,以找出误解、遗漏和添加虚假信息的实例。采用双语评价替代研究(BLEU)、明确排序翻译评价指标(METEOR)、翻译编辑率(TER)和字符f分数(CHRF)评价翻译质量。通过统计分析来比较不同提示符的LLM性能。结果在800份llm生成的翻译报告印象中,发现放射科医师有9例误解和2例遗漏信息。对于提示1,Gemini在BLEU中的表现优于其他患者(p p = 0.001),在TER和CHRF中的表现优于gpt - 40和GPT-4 (TER的p = 0.501, CHRF的p = 0.90)。对于提示2,gpt - 40优于其他所有提示(p p p)结论虽然每个LLM的有效性因提示措辞而异,但所有模型都显示出翻译和简化放射学报告印象的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging
Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
115
审稿时长
45 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
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