Abstract
Purpose We examined the effectiveness of proprietary and open Large Language Models (LLMs) in detecting disease presence, location, and treatment response in pancreatic cancer from radiology reports.
Methods We analyzed 203 deidentified radiology reports, manually annotated for disease status, location, and indeterminate nodules needing follow-up. Utilizing GPT-4, GPT-3.5-turbo, and open models like Gemma-7B and Llama3-8B, we employed strategies such as ablation and prompt engineering to boost accuracy. Discrepancies between human and model interpretations were reviewed by a secondary oncologist.
Results Among 164 pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients, GPT-4 showed the highest accuracy in inferring disease status, achieving a 75.5% correctness (F1-micro). Open models Mistral-7B and Llama3-8B performed comparably, with accuracies of 68.6% and 61.4%, respectively. Mistral-7B excelled in deriving correct inferences from “Objective Findings” directly. Most tested models demonstrated proficiency in identifying disease containing anatomical locations from a list of choices, with GPT-4 and Llama3-8B showing near parity in precision and recall for disease site identification. However, open models struggled with differentiating benign from malignant post-surgical changes, impacting their precision in identifying findings indeterminate for cancer. A secondary review occasionally favored GPT-3.5’s interpretations, indicating the variability in human judgment.
Conclusion LLMs, especially GPT-4, are proficient in deriving oncological insights from radiology reports. Their performance is enhanced by effective summarization strategies, demonstrating their potential in clinical support and healthcare analytics. This study also underscores the possibility of zero-shot open model utility in environments where proprietary models are restricted. Finally, by providing a set of annotated radiology reports, this paper presents a valuable dataset for further LLM research in oncology.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
this study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Access and deidentification was performed under approval of the UCSF Institutional Review Board (IRB# 18-25163).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data used for this study will be available on physionet at time of final peer-reviewed publication. Code, methods and prompts are contained within manuscript and supplement
