ArticleInsights into imaging2026
How green are large language models for radiology report labelling? Comparing human, rule-based and hybrid workflows.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo address limited quantitative data on sustainable use of large language models (LLMs) in radiology, we quantified the resource footprint of LLMs for labelling CT pulmonary embolism reports and assessed how a hybrid rule-based-LLM workflow changes time, cost and carbon emissions compared with manual labelling. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this single-centre retrospective study, 2923 structured CT reports were labelled using four workflows: a rule-based extractor (RBE), an LLM-only pipeline using 18 open-weight and four proprietary models, a hybrid RBE-LLM pipeline that routed RBE failures to an LLM, and full manual labelling by radiologists. Ground truth was based on radiologist adjudication. For each LLM, we measured per-report latency, estimated CO
resultsManual labelling required 32.8 h for 2923 reports (40.4 s/report; €0.42/report) with 95.0% accuracy (95% CI: 93.7-96.2). LLM-only pipelines were less accurate (85.1%; 95% CI: 84.9-85.5) but reduced labelling time to 12.4 h and cost to €2.60 (both p < 0.001). Hybrid RBE-LLM workflows yielded the highest accuracy (98.5%) and lowest resource use: across 22 models, switching from LLM-only to hybrid reduced time (6.7 to 0.97 h), cost (€1.19 to €0.17), and CO
conclusionLLM-only labelling reduced labour time and direct costs compared with manual annotation. A hybrid RBE-LLM pipeline that forwards rule-based failures to an LLM concentrated compute where needed and markedly decreased time, cost and emissions, supporting targeted deployment of LLMs for sustainable data-annotation workflows in radiology. CRITICAL RELEVANCE: By quantifying time, cost and carbon emissions of manual, rule-based, LLM and hybrid report labelling, this study identifies sustainable workflows for deploying LLMs in routine radiology reporting. KEY POINTS: Manual expert labelling of CT pulmonary embolism reports is time-intensive and costly. Mid-sized LLM configurations provide favourable trade-offs between performance and resource use. Hybrid rule-based-LLM workflows sustain accuracy while reducing resource demands.
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.