Evidence mapPaperPMID 42346249Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2026

Automated PROMISE V2 Scoring from PSMA PET/CT Reports Using Large Language Models: A Comparative Evaluation of Prompt Design and Model Performance.

Tilman Speicher, Isa Ethem Demirkol, Arne Blickle, Moritz B Bastian, Stephan Maus, Andrea Schaefer-Schuler, Mark Bartholomä, Caroline Burgard, Samer Ezziddin, Florian Rosar

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Tilman SpeicherDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Saarland University-Medical Center, 66421 Homburg, Germany.
Isa Ethem DemirkolDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Saarland University-Medical Center, 66421 Homburg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0007-3744-8289
Arne BlickleDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Saarland University-Medical Center, 66421 Homburg, Germany.
Moritz B BastianDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Saarland University-Medical Center, 66421 Homburg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-2106-9548
Stephan MausDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Saarland University-Medical Center, 66421 Homburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1679-8080
Andrea Schaefer-SchulerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Saarland University-Medical Center, 66421 Homburg, Germany.
Mark BartholomäDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Saarland University-Medical Center, 66421 Homburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0361-2833
Caroline BurgardDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Saarland University-Medical Center, 66421 Homburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1522-8860
Samer EzziddinDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Saarland University-Medical Center, 66421 Homburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4110-3375
Florian RosarDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Saarland University-Medical Center, 66421 Homburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2985-4099

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored for clinical use. However, the extent to which such models can reliably support physicians in reporting, staging, and the assessment of classification remains an active area of research. This study aimed to evaluate and compare multiple LLMs for automated PROMISE V2 classification for prostate cancer. A total of 126 unambiguous German-language PSMA PET/CT text reports were retrospectively analyzed, with reference standards established by expert consensus based on image interpretation and the original report text. Five LLMs (GPT-5.4, DeepSeek-V3.2, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3 Flash and Grok 4) were assessed using two English-language prompting strategies of varying complexity. Agreement with the reference standard served as the primary endpoint. Performance varied in the short-prompt setting (36.5-79.4%) but improved consistently with the long prompt (74.6-86.5%), with Gemini 3 Flash achieving the highest agreement. Across PROMISE V2 subcategories, agreement rates were high (miT: 81.0-92.1%, miN: 92.9-96.0%, miM: 92.9-95.2%), despite inter-model differences. In conclusion, contemporary LLMs demonstrate promising performance in deriving PROMISE V2 scores from unambiguous original report texts, particularly when guided by detailed prompts.

Indexed as

Glutamate Carboxypeptidase IIPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProstatic NeoplasmsAntigens, SurfaceHumansLarge Language ModelsMaleRetrospective StudiesAntigens, SurfaceFOLH1 protein, humanGlutamate Carboxypeptidase IIlarge language modelLLMPET/CTPROMISEprostate cancerPSMA

Identifiers

PMID42346249
PMCPMC13298828

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.