Radiology Report Annotation Using Generative Large Language Models: Comparative Analysis.

IF 3.3 Q2 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
International Journal of Biomedical Imaging Pub Date : 2025-01-06 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/ijbi/5019035
Bayan Altalla', Ashraf Ahmad, Layla Bitar, Mohammed Al-Bssol, Amal Al Omari, Iyad Sultan
{"title":"Radiology Report Annotation Using Generative Large Language Models: Comparative Analysis.","authors":"Bayan Altalla', Ashraf Ahmad, Layla Bitar, Mohammed Al-Bssol, Amal Al Omari, Iyad Sultan","doi":"10.1155/ijbi/5019035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs), particularly GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, have sparked significant interest in their application within the medical field. This research offers a detailed comparative analysis of the abilities of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in the context of annotating radiology reports and generating impressions from chest computed tomography (CT) scans. The primary objective is to use these models to assist healthcare professionals in handling routine documentation tasks. Employing methods such as in-context learning (ICL) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), the study focused on generating impression sections from radiological findings. Comprehensive evaluation was applied using a variety of metrics, including recall-oriented understudy for gisting evaluation (ROUGE) for n-gram analysis, Instructor Similarity for contextual similarity, and BERTScore for semantic similarity, to assess the performance of these models. The study shows distinct performance differences between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 across both zero-shot and few-shot learning scenarios. It was observed that certain prompts significantly influenced the performance outcomes, with specific prompts leading to more accurate impressions. The RAG method achieved a superior BERTScore of 0.92, showcasing its ability to generate semantically rich and contextually accurate impressions. In contrast, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 excel in preserving language tone, with Instructor Similarity scores of approximately 0.92 across scenarios, underscoring the importance of prompt design in effective summarization tasks. The findings of this research emphasize the critical role of prompt design in optimizing model efficacy and point to the significant potential for further exploration in prompt engineering. Moreover, the study advocates for the standardized integration of such advanced LLMs in healthcare practices, highlighting their potential to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of medical documentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":47063,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Biomedical Imaging","volume":"2025 ","pages":"5019035"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11835477/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Biomedical Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/ijbi/5019035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs), particularly GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, have sparked significant interest in their application within the medical field. This research offers a detailed comparative analysis of the abilities of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in the context of annotating radiology reports and generating impressions from chest computed tomography (CT) scans. The primary objective is to use these models to assist healthcare professionals in handling routine documentation tasks. Employing methods such as in-context learning (ICL) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), the study focused on generating impression sections from radiological findings. Comprehensive evaluation was applied using a variety of metrics, including recall-oriented understudy for gisting evaluation (ROUGE) for n-gram analysis, Instructor Similarity for contextual similarity, and BERTScore for semantic similarity, to assess the performance of these models. The study shows distinct performance differences between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 across both zero-shot and few-shot learning scenarios. It was observed that certain prompts significantly influenced the performance outcomes, with specific prompts leading to more accurate impressions. The RAG method achieved a superior BERTScore of 0.92, showcasing its ability to generate semantically rich and contextually accurate impressions. In contrast, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 excel in preserving language tone, with Instructor Similarity scores of approximately 0.92 across scenarios, underscoring the importance of prompt design in effective summarization tasks. The findings of this research emphasize the critical role of prompt design in optimizing model efficacy and point to the significant potential for further exploration in prompt engineering. Moreover, the study advocates for the standardized integration of such advanced LLMs in healthcare practices, highlighting their potential to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of medical documentation.

使用生成式大语言模型的放射学报告注释:比较分析。
大型语言模型(llm)的最新进展,特别是GPT-3.5和GPT-4,引起了人们对其在医学领域应用的极大兴趣。本研究对GPT-3.5和GPT-4在注释放射学报告和从胸部计算机断层扫描(CT)产生印象方面的能力进行了详细的比较分析。主要目标是使用这些模型帮助医疗保健专业人员处理常规文档任务。采用上下文学习(ICL)和检索增强生成(RAG)等方法,研究重点是根据放射检查结果生成印象切片。综合评价采用了多种指标,包括用于n-gram分析的面向回忆的注册评价替补(ROUGE),用于上下文相似性的讲师相似性,以及用于语义相似性的BERTScore,以评估这些模型的性能。该研究显示,GPT-3.5和GPT-4在零射击和少射击的学习场景中都有明显的表现差异。我们观察到,某些提示会显著影响表现结果,特定提示会导致更准确的印象。RAG方法获得了0.92的优异BERTScore,显示了其生成语义丰富和上下文准确印象的能力。相比之下,GPT-3.5和GPT-4在保留语言语调方面表现出色,在不同情景下的教师相似度得分约为0.92,这强调了提示设计在有效总结任务中的重要性。本研究结果强调了提示设计在优化模型效能方面的关键作用,并指出了提示工程的进一步探索潜力。此外,该研究提倡将这些先进的法学硕士标准化整合到医疗保健实践中,强调它们在提高医疗文档效率和准确性方面的潜力。
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
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Biomedical Imaging is managed by a board of editors comprising internationally renowned active researchers. The journal is freely accessible online and also offered for purchase in print format. It employs a web-based review system to ensure swift turnaround times while maintaining high standards. In addition to regular issues, special issues are organized by guest editors. The subject areas covered include (but are not limited to): Digital radiography and tomosynthesis X-ray computed tomography (CT) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) Positron emission tomography (PET) Ultrasound imaging Diffuse optical tomography, coherence, fluorescence, bioluminescence tomography, impedance tomography Neutron imaging for biomedical applications Magnetic and optical spectroscopy, and optical biopsy Optical, electron, scanning tunneling/atomic force microscopy Small animal imaging Functional, cellular, and molecular imaging Imaging assays for screening and molecular analysis Microarray image analysis and bioinformatics Emerging biomedical imaging techniques Imaging modality fusion Biomedical imaging instrumentation Biomedical image processing, pattern recognition, and analysis Biomedical image visualization, compression, transmission, and storage Imaging and modeling related to systems biology and systems biomedicine Applied mathematics, applied physics, and chemistry related to biomedical imaging Grid-enabling technology for biomedical imaging and informatics
×
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