ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Privacy-Preserving Large Language Model for Matching Findings and Tracking Interval Changes in Longitudinal Radiology Reports.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Real-World Monitoring of Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: Challenges and Best Practices.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In current radiology practice, radiologists identify a finding in the current imaging exam, manually match it against the description from the prior exam report and assess interval changes. Large Language Models (LLMs) can identify report findings, but their ability to track interval changes has not been tested. The goal of this study was to determine the utility of a privacy-preserving LLM for matching findings between two reports (prior and follow-up) and tracking interval changes in size. In this retrospective study, body MRI reports from NIH (internal) were collected. A two-stage framework was employed for matching findings and tracking interval changes. In Stage 1, the LLM took a sentence from the follow-up report and discovered a matched finding in the prior report. In Stage 2, the LLM predicted the interval change status (increase, decrease, or stable) of the matched findings. Seven LLMs were locally evaluated and the best LLM was validated on an external non-contrast chest CT dataset. Agreement with the reference (radiologist) was measured using Cohen's Kappa (κ). The internal body MRI dataset had 240 studies (120 patients, mean age, 47 ± 16 years; 65 men) and the external non-contrast chest CT dataset contained 134 studies (67 patients, mean age, 58 ± 18 years; 44 men). On the internal dataset, TenyxChat-7B LLM fared the best for matching findings with an F1-score of 85.4% (95% CI: 80.8, 89.9) over the other LLMs (p < 0.05). For interval change detection, the same LLM achieved a 62.7% F1-score and showed a moderate agreement (κ = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.37, 0.55). For the external dataset, the same LLM attained F1-scores of 81.8% (95% CI: 74.4, 89.1) for matching findings and 77.4% for interval change detection respectively, with a substantial agreement (κ = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.80). The TenyxChat-7B LLM used for matching longitudinal report findings and tracking interval changes showed moderate to substantial agreement with the reference standard. For structured reporting, the LLM can pre-fill the "Findings" section of the next follow-up exam report with a summary of longitudinal changes to important findings. It can also enhance the communication between the referring physician and radiologist.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.