ArticleBMC urology2026
Evaluation of large language models in assigning PI-RADS v2.1 categories for prostate MRI reports.
Article in BMC urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the performance of large language models (LLMs) in classifying prostate MRI reports according to the Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) version 2.1, and to validate their use in supporting clinical decisions in prostate cancer treatment.
methodsThis retrospective study included 146 patients. Four LLMs — GPT-4o, GPT-o1, Google Gemini 1.5 Pro and Google Gemini 2.0 Experimental Advanced — were tested on standardised, structured prostate MRI reports. A two-radiologist consensus reference standard was used to compare model performance. Agreement was measured using weighted Cohen’s kappa, and accuracy and F1 scores were calculated for three PI-RADS risk groups: low (1–2), intermediate (3) and high (4–5).
resultsPerformance varied by model. GPT-o1 achieved the highest level of agreement with radiologists (κ = 0.867), followed by GPT-4o (κ = 0.743), Gemini 1.5 Pro (κ = 0.728) and Gemini 2.0 Experimental Advanced (κ = 0.664). GPT-o1 achieved the highest F1 scores for the low-risk (0.93) and high-risk (1.00) groups, demonstrating moderate performance for the PI-RADS 3 group (0.75). All models showed weak performance for PI-RADS 3 (F1 range: 0.54–0.75). Most importantly, none of the models produced invalid results outside the target PI-RADS 1–5 range.
conclusionLLMs show potential for automating PI-RADS classification from MRI reports, with GPT-o1 demonstrating the best overall performance. However, their failure in PI-RADS 3 lesions indicates that multicentre validation, larger datasets and multimodality integration are needed before they can be used clinically for prostate cancer diagnosis and urological decision-making.
trial registrationNot applicable. This retrospective study did not involve a clinical trial.
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.