4.9CLNov 14, 2025Code
Identifying Imaging Follow-Up in Radiology Reports: A Comparative Analysis of Traditional ML and LLM ApproachesNamu Park, Giridhar Kaushik Ramachandran, Kevin Lybarger et al.
Large language models (LLMs) have shown considerable promise in clinical natural language processing, yet few domain-specific datasets exist to rigorously evaluate their performance on radiology tasks. In this work, we introduce an annotated corpus of 6,393 radiology reports from 586 patients, each labeled for follow-up imaging status, to support the development and benchmarking of follow-up adherence detection systems. Using this corpus, we systematically compared traditional machine-learning classifiers, including logistic regression (LR), support vector machines (SVM), Longformer, and a fully fine-tuned Llama3-8B-Instruct, with recent generative LLMs. To evaluate generative LLMs, we tested GPT-4o and the open-source GPT-OSS-20B under two configurations: a baseline (Base) and a task-optimized (Advanced) setting that focused inputs on metadata, recommendation sentences, and their surrounding context. A refined prompt for GPT-OSS-20B further improved reasoning accuracy. Performance was assessed using precision, recall, and F1 scores with 95% confidence intervals estimated via non-parametric bootstrapping. Inter-annotator agreement was high (F1 = 0.846). GPT-4o (Advanced) achieved the best performance (F1 = 0.832), followed closely by GPT-OSS-20B (Advanced; F1 = 0.828). LR and SVM also performed strongly (F1 = 0.776 and 0.775), underscoring that while LLMs approach human-level agreement through prompt optimization, interpretable and resource-efficient models remain valuable baselines.
2.7CLDec 5, 2025
Automated Identification of Incidentalomas Requiring Follow-Up: A Multi-Anatomy Evaluation of LLM-Based and Supervised ApproachesNamu Park, Farzad Ahmed, Zhaoyi Sun et al.
Objective: To evaluate large language models (LLMs) against supervised baselines for fine-grained, lesion-level detection of incidentalomas requiring follow-up, addressing the limitations of current document-level classification systems. Methods: We utilized a dataset of 400 annotated radiology reports containing 1,623 verified lesion findings. We compared three supervised transformer-based encoders (BioClinicalModernBERT, ModernBERT, Clinical Longformer) against four generative LLM configurations (Llama 3.1-8B, GPT-4o, GPT-OSS-20b). We introduced a novel inference strategy using lesion-tagged inputs and anatomy-aware prompting to ground model reasoning. Performance was evaluated using class-specific F1-scores. Results: The anatomy-informed GPT-OSS-20b model achieved the highest performance, yielding an incidentaloma-positive macro-F1 of 0.79. This surpassed all supervised baselines (maximum macro-F1: 0.70) and closely matched the inter-annotator agreement of 0.76. Explicit anatomical grounding yielded statistically significant performance gains across GPT-based models (p < 0.05), while a majority-vote ensemble of the top systems further improved the macro-F1 to 0.90. Error analysis revealed that anatomy-aware LLMs demonstrated superior contextual reasoning in distinguishing actionable findings from benign lesions. Conclusion: Generative LLMs, when enhanced with structured lesion tagging and anatomical context, significantly outperform traditional supervised encoders and achieve performance comparable to human experts. This approach offers a reliable, interpretable pathway for automated incidental finding surveillance in radiology workflows.