ArticleEJNMMI research2026
Can chatGPT-4o reliably standardize PSMA PET/CT and PET/MRI reports using PROMISE V2 criteria? - An exploratory study.
Article in EJNMMI research, 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
backgroundStructured reporting standardizes and facilitates reporting, improves accurate communication, and ultimately clinical decision-making. Although standardized frameworks such as PROMISE criteria are available for prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) for prostate cancer patients, free-text reporting remains predominant in both clinical routine and trials. Large language models (LLMs) may enable low-effort, time-efficient extraction of structured classifications from narrative reports. This study evaluated the performance of ChatGPT-4o for extracting PROMISE V2-based classifications from unstructured PSMA-PET/CT and PET/MRI reports.
resultsFor PSMA-PET/CT, overall miTNM accuracy was 79.8%, whereas PSMA-PET/MRI achieved a significantly higher accuracy of 91.0% (OR = 2.80, 95% CI: 1.32-6.51, p = 0.003). Component-wise, PET/MRI outperformed PET/CT in T-stage classification (83.8% vs. 57.7%; OR = 3.83, 95% CI: 1.34-12.69, p = 0.006) and demonstrated numerically higher N-stage classification accuracy (100% vs. 85.9%, p = 0.014), while M-stage classification was comparable between modalities (89.1% vs. 95.7%; OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.20-4.19, p = 0.748). PRIMARY score accuracy was also comparable for PET/CT and PET/MRI (70.4% vs. 88.1%; OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.05-2.14, p = 0.315). ChatGPT-4o's rationale for classifications was rated highly plausible across modalities, with a minimum Likert score of ≥ 4.8 for miTNM and 4.1 for PRIMARY.
conclusionChatGPT-4o enables reliable extraction of PROMISE V2-based N- and M-stage classifications from free-text PSMA-PET reports, with limited accuracy for T-stage. This work provides a first step toward leveraging LLMs to support structured and efficient reporting in PSMA PET imaging and points out present limitations.
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.