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.
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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.