Frank J. Wolters

Kaouther Mouheb, Amos Pomp, Antoine Manenti et al.

Objectives: Automatic data extraction from free-text radiology reports enables large-scale research, but few studies assessed the performance of large language models (LLMs) on Dutch neuroradiology reports. Methods: We analyzed 947 brain MRI reports from a tertiary memory clinic (2016-2021), authored by consultant neuroradiologists. Trained medical students annotated thirty variables; 100 reports were double-annotated to assess inter-rater reliability. We evaluated the performance of the open-weight LLM LLaMA 3.1 using different languages (Dutch vs. English translation) and few-shot prompting with different example selection strategies. Performance was evaluated using balanced accuracy for categorical variables, accuracy and mean absolute error for counts, and text similarity for free-text. Metrics were computed across 10 random splits of the 947 reports. Results: LLaMA 3.1 demonstrated high zero-shot performance for visual rating scores (mean [95%-CI]): Medial Temporal Atrophy: 90% [77-100%] on the left and 96% [94-99%] on the right, Global Cortical Atrophy: 87% [83-91%], and Fazekas: 94% [93-96%]. Microbleed mentions were detected with 93% accuracy [92-95%] and infarct mentions with 82% [80-84%]. Text similarity for lesion location reached 0.95 [0.95-0.96]. Performance was lower for numerical variables: 80% [78-82%] for the number of microbleeds and 66% [63-68%] for infarcts. English translation yielded comparable results. Few-shot prompting improved performance for numerical variables, achieving 92% [90-93%] for microbleeds and 81% [77-85%] for infarcts using structural similarity-based selection. Conclusion: LLaMA 3.1 shows strong potential for extracting data from Dutch neuroradiology reports. Few-shot prompting enhances performance for numerical variables, whereas challenges remain for location-specific variables.

Douwe J. Spaanderman, Karthik Prathaban, Petr Zelina et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to extract structured information from free-text clinical records, but prior work often focuses on single tasks, limited models, and English-language reports. We evaluated 15 open-weight LLMs on pathology and radiology reports across six use cases, colorectal liver metastases, liver tumours, neurodegenerative diseases, soft-tissue tumours, melanomas, and sarcomas, at three institutes in the Netherlands, UK, and Czech Republic. Models included general-purpose and medical-specialised LLMs of various sizes, and six prompting strategies were compared: zero-shot, one-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, self-consistency, and prompt graph. Performance was assessed using task-appropriate metrics, with consensus rank aggregation and linear mixed-effects models quantifying variance. Top-ranked models achieved macro-average scores close to inter-rater agreement across tasks. Small-to-medium general-purpose models performed comparably to large models, while tiny and specialised models performed worse. Prompt graph and few-shot prompting improved performance by ~13%. Task-specific factors, including variable complexity and annotation variability, influenced results more than model size or prompting strategy. These findings show that open-weight LLMs can extract structured data from clinical reports across diseases, languages, and institutions, offering a scalable approach for clinical data curation.