Using a Large Language Model-Generated Prompt to Extract Features from Synthetic MRI Brain Scan Reports: A Cross-Sectional Study.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Methods of Information in Medicine Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-19 DOI:10.1055/a-2797-4295
John J Hanna, Christopher S Evans, Christopher R Dennis, K Stuart Lee, Christoph U Lehmann, Richard J Medford
{"title":"Using a Large Language Model-Generated Prompt to Extract Features from Synthetic MRI Brain Scan Reports: A Cross-Sectional Study.","authors":"John J Hanna, Christopher S Evans, Christopher R Dennis, K Stuart Lee, Christoph U Lehmann, Richard J Medford","doi":"10.1055/a-2797-4295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Feature extraction from free text medical reports is a frequently required clinical, operational, or research procedure. Large language models (LLMs) hold a promise for automating feature extraction, which can also enable category assignment tasks.To compare the groundedness of extracted features by five LLMs from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain scan reports using a clinician-engineered versus an LLM-generated prompt.Five OpenAI LLMs were evaluated for their ability to extract nine binary features from synthetic MRI brain reports. Two types of prompts, a clinician-engineered and an LLM-generated, were used. Metrics including recall, precision, accuracy, and F1 score were calculated to assess model performance.For all extracted features by all studied models from both tested prompts, the overall average recall was 0.956, the average precision was 0.9347, the average accuracy was 0.982, and the average F1 score was 0.9431. Using GPT-3.5-turbo, the LLM-generated prompt had better numerical performance than the clinician-engineered prompt. For the other four GPT-4 models examined, overall recall, precision, and accuracy were higher regardless of the prompt source.This study highlights the potential of LLMs to generate prompts and accurately extract features, with newer models like GPT-4 performing consistently well. The efficacy of feature extraction by LLMs depends on the engineered prompt and model used. Our experimentation demonstrates the potential of LLMs to engineer prompts and extract features from MRI brain scan reports.</p>","PeriodicalId":49822,"journal":{"name":"Methods of Information in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"54-62"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methods of Information in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2797-4295","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Feature extraction from free text medical reports is a frequently required clinical, operational, or research procedure. Large language models (LLMs) hold a promise for automating feature extraction, which can also enable category assignment tasks.To compare the groundedness of extracted features by five LLMs from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain scan reports using a clinician-engineered versus an LLM-generated prompt.Five OpenAI LLMs were evaluated for their ability to extract nine binary features from synthetic MRI brain reports. Two types of prompts, a clinician-engineered and an LLM-generated, were used. Metrics including recall, precision, accuracy, and F1 score were calculated to assess model performance.For all extracted features by all studied models from both tested prompts, the overall average recall was 0.956, the average precision was 0.9347, the average accuracy was 0.982, and the average F1 score was 0.9431. Using GPT-3.5-turbo, the LLM-generated prompt had better numerical performance than the clinician-engineered prompt. For the other four GPT-4 models examined, overall recall, precision, and accuracy were higher regardless of the prompt source.This study highlights the potential of LLMs to generate prompts and accurately extract features, with newer models like GPT-4 performing consistently well. The efficacy of feature extraction by LLMs depends on the engineered prompt and model used. Our experimentation demonstrates the potential of LLMs to engineer prompts and extract features from MRI brain scan reports.

使用大型语言模型生成提示从合成MRI脑扫描报告中提取特征:一项横断面研究。
从自由文本医学报告中提取特征是临床、操作或研究过程中经常需要的。大型语言模型(llm)有望实现自动化特征提取,这也可以支持类别分配任务。比较五个llm从磁共振成像(MRI)脑扫描报告中提取的特征的地基性,使用临床设计的提示与llm生成的提示。评估了5个OpenAI llm从合成MRI脑报告中提取9个二进制特征的能力。使用了两种类型的提示符,一种是临床设计的,另一种是法学硕士生成的。计算包括召回率、精密度、准确度和F1分数在内的指标来评估模型的性能。对于所有模型从两个测试提示中提取的所有特征,总体平均召回率为0.956,平均精密度为0.9347,平均准确度为0.982,平均F1得分为0.9431。使用gpt -3.5 turbo, llm生成的提示符比临床设计的提示符具有更好的数值性能。对于其他四种GPT-4模型,无论提示来源如何,总体召回率,精度和准确性都更高。这项研究强调了llm在生成提示和准确提取特征方面的潜力,像GPT-4这样的新模型一直表现良好。llm特征提取的效果取决于工程提示和使用的模型。我们的实验证明了llm在从MRI脑扫描报告中设计提示和提取特征方面的潜力。
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
Methods of Information in Medicine
Methods of Information in Medicine 医学-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
11.80%
发文量
33
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Good medicine and good healthcare demand good information. Since the journal''s founding in 1962, Methods of Information in Medicine has stressed the methodology and scientific fundamentals of organizing, representing and analyzing data, information and knowledge in biomedicine and health care. Covering publications in the fields of biomedical and health informatics, medical biometry, and epidemiology, the journal publishes original papers, reviews, reports, opinion papers, editorials, and letters to the editor. From time to time, the journal publishes articles on particular focus themes as part of a journal''s issue.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书