Michael Bartley , Zachary Huemann , Junjie Hu , Xin Tie , Andrew B. Ross , Tabassum Kennedy , Joshua D. Warner , Tyler Bradshaw , Edward M. Lawrence MD, PhD
{"title":"人工智能在教学案例管理中的应用:评估图像报告差异模型的性能。","authors":"Michael Bartley , Zachary Huemann , Junjie Hu , Xin Tie , Andrew B. Ross , Tabassum Kennedy , Joshua D. Warner , Tyler Bradshaw , Edward M. Lawrence MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.acra.2025.02.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Rationale and Objectives</h3><div>Assess the feasibility of using a large language model (LLM) to identify valuable radiology teaching cases through report discrepancy detection.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>Retrospective study included after-hours head CT and musculoskeletal radiograph exams from January 2017 to December 2021. Discrepancy level between trainee’s preliminary interpretation and final attending report was annotated on a 5-point scale. RadBERT, an LLM pretrained on a vast corpus of radiology text, was fine-tuned for discrepancy detection. For comparison and to ensure the robustness of the approach, Mixstral 8×7B, Mistral 7B, and Llama2 were also evaluated. The model’s performance in detecting discrepancies was evaluated using a randomly selected hold-out test set. A subset of discrepant cases identified by the LLM was compared to a random case set by recording clinical parameters, discrepant pathology, and evaluating possible educational value. F1 statistic was used for model comparison. Pearson’s chi-squared test was employed to assess discrepancy prevalence and score between groups (significance set at p<0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The fine-tuned LLM model achieved an overall accuracy of 90.5% with a specificity of 95.5% and a sensitivity of 66.3% for discrepancy detection. The model sensitivity significantly improved with higher discrepancy scores, 49% (34/70) for score 2 versus 67% (47/62) for score 3, and 81% (35/43) for score 4/5 (p<0.05 compared to score 2).</div><div>LLM-curated set showed a significant increase in the prevalence of all discrepancies and major discrepancies (scores 4 or 5) compared to a random case set (P<0.05 for both). Evaluation of the clinical characteristics from both the random and discrepant case sets demonstrated a broad mix of pathologies and discrepancy types.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>An LLM can detect trainee report discrepancies, including both higher and lower-scoring discrepancies, and may improve case set curation for resident education as well as serve as a trainee oversight tool.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50928,"journal":{"name":"Academic Radiology","volume":"32 6","pages":"Pages 3139-3146"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial Intelligence for Teaching Case Curation: Evaluating Model Performance on Imaging Report Discrepancies\",\"authors\":\"Michael Bartley , Zachary Huemann , Junjie Hu , Xin Tie , Andrew B. Ross , Tabassum Kennedy , Joshua D. Warner , Tyler Bradshaw , Edward M. Lawrence MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.acra.2025.02.011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Rationale and Objectives</h3><div>Assess the feasibility of using a large language model (LLM) to identify valuable radiology teaching cases through report discrepancy detection.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>Retrospective study included after-hours head CT and musculoskeletal radiograph exams from January 2017 to December 2021. Discrepancy level between trainee’s preliminary interpretation and final attending report was annotated on a 5-point scale. RadBERT, an LLM pretrained on a vast corpus of radiology text, was fine-tuned for discrepancy detection. For comparison and to ensure the robustness of the approach, Mixstral 8×7B, Mistral 7B, and Llama2 were also evaluated. The model’s performance in detecting discrepancies was evaluated using a randomly selected hold-out test set. A subset of discrepant cases identified by the LLM was compared to a random case set by recording clinical parameters, discrepant pathology, and evaluating possible educational value. F1 statistic was used for model comparison. Pearson’s chi-squared test was employed to assess discrepancy prevalence and score between groups (significance set at p<0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The fine-tuned LLM model achieved an overall accuracy of 90.5% with a specificity of 95.5% and a sensitivity of 66.3% for discrepancy detection. The model sensitivity significantly improved with higher discrepancy scores, 49% (34/70) for score 2 versus 67% (47/62) for score 3, and 81% (35/43) for score 4/5 (p<0.05 compared to score 2).</div><div>LLM-curated set showed a significant increase in the prevalence of all discrepancies and major discrepancies (scores 4 or 5) compared to a random case set (P<0.05 for both). Evaluation of the clinical characteristics from both the random and discrepant case sets demonstrated a broad mix of pathologies and discrepancy types.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>An LLM can detect trainee report discrepancies, including both higher and lower-scoring discrepancies, and may improve case set curation for resident education as well as serve as a trainee oversight tool.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Radiology\",\"volume\":\"32 6\",\"pages\":\"Pages 3139-3146\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1076633225001138\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1076633225001138","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Artificial Intelligence for Teaching Case Curation: Evaluating Model Performance on Imaging Report Discrepancies
Rationale and Objectives
Assess the feasibility of using a large language model (LLM) to identify valuable radiology teaching cases through report discrepancy detection.
Materials and Methods
Retrospective study included after-hours head CT and musculoskeletal radiograph exams from January 2017 to December 2021. Discrepancy level between trainee’s preliminary interpretation and final attending report was annotated on a 5-point scale. RadBERT, an LLM pretrained on a vast corpus of radiology text, was fine-tuned for discrepancy detection. For comparison and to ensure the robustness of the approach, Mixstral 8×7B, Mistral 7B, and Llama2 were also evaluated. The model’s performance in detecting discrepancies was evaluated using a randomly selected hold-out test set. A subset of discrepant cases identified by the LLM was compared to a random case set by recording clinical parameters, discrepant pathology, and evaluating possible educational value. F1 statistic was used for model comparison. Pearson’s chi-squared test was employed to assess discrepancy prevalence and score between groups (significance set at p<0.05).
Results
The fine-tuned LLM model achieved an overall accuracy of 90.5% with a specificity of 95.5% and a sensitivity of 66.3% for discrepancy detection. The model sensitivity significantly improved with higher discrepancy scores, 49% (34/70) for score 2 versus 67% (47/62) for score 3, and 81% (35/43) for score 4/5 (p<0.05 compared to score 2).
LLM-curated set showed a significant increase in the prevalence of all discrepancies and major discrepancies (scores 4 or 5) compared to a random case set (P<0.05 for both). Evaluation of the clinical characteristics from both the random and discrepant case sets demonstrated a broad mix of pathologies and discrepancy types.
Conclusion
An LLM can detect trainee report discrepancies, including both higher and lower-scoring discrepancies, and may improve case set curation for resident education as well as serve as a trainee oversight tool.
期刊介绍:
Academic Radiology publishes original reports of clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, image-guided interventions and related techniques. It also includes brief technical reports describing original observations, techniques, and instrumental developments; state-of-the-art reports on clinical issues, new technology and other topics of current medical importance; meta-analyses; scientific studies and opinions on radiologic education; and letters to the Editor.