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。

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Academic Radiology Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-09 DOI:10.1016/j.acra.2025.02.011
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 ,&nbsp;Zachary Huemann ,&nbsp;Junjie Hu ,&nbsp;Xin Tie ,&nbsp;Andrew B. Ross ,&nbsp;Tabassum Kennedy ,&nbsp;Joshua D. Warner ,&nbsp;Tyler Bradshaw ,&nbsp;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&lt;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&lt;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&lt;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 ,&nbsp;Zachary Huemann ,&nbsp;Junjie Hu ,&nbsp;Xin Tie ,&nbsp;Andrew B. Ross ,&nbsp;Tabassum Kennedy ,&nbsp;Joshua D. Warner ,&nbsp;Tyler Bradshaw ,&nbsp;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&lt;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&lt;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&lt;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基本原理和目的:评估使用大语言模型(LLM)通过报告差异检测来识别有价值的放射学教学案例的可行性。材料和方法:回顾性研究包括2017年1月至2021年12月的下班后头部CT和肌肉骨骼x线片检查。学员的初步口译与最终出席报告之间的差异程度以5分制标注。RadBERT是一名法学硕士,在大量放射学文本的语料库上进行了预训练,他对差异检测进行了微调。为了进行比较并确保方法的稳健性,还对Mixstral 8×7B、Mistral 7B和Llama2进行了评估。使用随机选择的保留测试集评估模型在检测差异方面的性能。通过记录临床参数、差异病理和评估可能的教育价值,将LLM确定的差异病例子集与随机病例集进行比较。模型比较采用F1统计量。采用Pearson卡方检验来评估组间的差异发生率和评分(结果显著性集:微调LLM模型在差异检测方面的总体准确性为90.5%,特异性为95.5%,敏感性为66.3%。随着差异分数的提高,模型的敏感性显著提高,分数2为49%(34/70),分数3为67%(47/62),分数4/5为81%(35/43)。结论:法学硕士可以检测实习生报告的差异,包括较高和较低的得分差异,并可以改善住院医师教育的案例集管理,并作为实习生监督工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Radiology
Academic Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
10.40%
发文量
432
审稿时长
18 days
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.
期刊最新文献
MRS and Optical Imaging Studies of Therapeutic Response to Combination Therapy Targeting BRAF/MEK in Murine Melanomas Effect of Incidence Sites on Light Distribution at Different Wavelengths During Transcranial Photobiomodulation Lessons Learned in Transforming In Vivo Devices from Pioneering Research into Tools Used Routinely in Medical Diagnostics Novel Non-Invasive PET Imaging of Reactive Oxygen Species Using [18 F]ROStrace in Three Proteinopathy-Associated Neurodegenerative Mouse Models Using NIRS-Based Spectroscopy for the Comparison of Cerebral Net-Water Uptake and Microcirculation in Posttraumatic Penumbra in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1