ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Large language models for analyzing contrast-enhanced ultrasound reports of pancreatic cystic lesions.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) require precise imaging characterization to guide clinical management. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) reports contain operator-dependent narratives that challenge clinicians. Large language models (LLMs) show potential in medical text analysis but lack validation for pancreatic CEUS interpretation. This study primarily aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of LLMs in interpreting Chinese CEUS reports of PCLs. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 80 pathologically confirmed PCLs (21 benign, 25 borderline malignant, 34 malignant). Four LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.0, DeepSeek-R1) and eight radiologists (senior/junior =4:4) independently interpreted reports under three input modalities: grayscale-only (IM1), grayscale + CEUS (IM2), and demographics + grayscale + CEUS (IM3). A weighted scoring system (0-100 points per case, yielding a maximum total of 8,000 points) quantified alignment with pathology-defined categories (benign/borderline/malignant). LLM errors were categorized into four reasons. Junior radiologists reinterpreted cases with LLM assistance. Results: Under CEUS input conditions (IM2/IM3), LLMs showed no statistically significant difference from senior radiologists and significantly outperformed junior radiologists. The median score per case (out of 100), after averaging across the four LLMs, increased with input complexity (IM1: 47.50; IM2: 53.75; IM3: 73.75). Diagnostic accuracy varied by pathology: malignant lesions scored highest, while benign serous cystic neoplasms scored lowest due to suboptimal CEUS visualization and LLMs' knowledge gaps. LLM guidance elevated junior radiologists' accuracy to senior levels. Conclusions: LLMs show promising capability in interpreting CEUS reports of PCLs, with no statistically significant difference from senior radiologists in this dataset. Their integration significantly improves junior clinicians' interpretation of CEUS reports. These findings support further investigation of LLMs as potential auxiliary tools for ultrasound text analysis, though external validation is needed.
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.