ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Efficacy of a large language model in classifying branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models for analyzing contrast-enhanced ultrasound reports of pancreatic cystic lesions.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of Super-Resolution Deep Learning Reconstruction on Low-Dose CT in Patients with Central Venous Catheter or Central Venous Port.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAppropriate categorization based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings is important for managing intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). In this study, a large language model (LLM) that classifies IPMNs based on MRI findings was developed, and its performance was compared with that of less experienced human readers.
methodsThe medical image management and processing systems of our hospital were searched to identify MRI reports of branch-duct IPMNs (BD-IPMNs). They were assigned to the training, validation, and testing datasets in chronological order. The model was trained on the training dataset, and the best-performing model on the validation dataset was evaluated on the test dataset. Furthermore, two radiology residents (Readers 1 and 2) and an intern (Reader 3) manually sorted the reports in the test dataset. The accuracy, sensitivity, and time required for categorizing were compared between the model and readers.
resultsThe accuracy of the fine-tuned LLM for the test dataset was 0.966, which was comparable to that of Readers 1 and 2 (0.931-0.972) and significantly better than that of Reader 3 (0.907). The fine-tuned LLM had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.982 for the classification of cyst diameter ≥ 10 mm, which was significantly superior to that of Reader 3 (0.944). Furthermore, the fine-tuned LLM (25 s) completed the test dataset faster than the readers (1,887-2,646 s).
conclusionThe fine-tuned LLM classified BD-IPMNs based on MRI findings with comparable performance to that of radiology residents and significantly reduced the time required.
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.