Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Previously submitted to: JMIR AI (no longer under consideration since Aug 15, 2024)

Date Submitted: Jul 26, 2024

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Comparison of the Knowledge of Large Language Models and General Radiologist on RECIST

  • Eren Çamur; 
  • Turay Cesur; 
  • Yasin Celal Güneş

ABSTRACT

This study aims to assess the potential of large language models (LLMs) to enhance reporting efficiency and accuracy in oncological imaging, specifically evaluating their knowledge of RECIST 1.1 guidelines. While the capabilities of LLMs have been explored across various domains, their specific applications in radiology are of significant interest due to the intricate and time-consuming nature of image evaluation in oncology. We conducted a comparative analysis involving seven different LLMs and a general radiologist (GR) to determine their proficiency in responding to RECIST 1.1-based multiple-choice questions. Our methodology involved the creation of 25 multiple-choice questions by a board-certified radiologist, ensuring alignment with RECIST 1.1 guidelines. These questions were presented to seven LLMs—Claude 3 Opus, ChatGPT 4, ChatGPT 4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Mistral Large, Meta Llama 3 70B, and Perplexity Pro—as well as to a GR with six years of experience. The LLMs were prompted to answer as an experienced radiologist, and their responses were compared to those of the GR. The results demonstrated that Claude 3 Opus achieved a perfect accuracy of 100% (25/25), followed closely by ChatGPT 4o with 96% (24/25). ChatGPT 4 and Mistral Large both scored 92% (23/25), while Meta Llama 3 70B, Perplexity Pro, and Gemini 1.5 each scored 88% (21/25). The GR also achieved a score of 92% (23/25). These findings highlight the impressive proficiency of current LLMs in understanding and applying RECIST 1.1 guidelines, suggesting their potential as valuable tools in radiology. The outstanding performance of Claude 3 Opus raises the prospect of LLMs becoming integral to oncology practices, potentially enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of radiology reporting. However, the variations in performance among different models underscore the need for further refinement and evaluation. Additionally, while this study focused on text-based responses, the visual assessment capabilities of multimodal LLMs remain unexplored. Given the visual nature of radiology, future research should investigate the integration of visual analysis in LLMs to fully harness their potential in clinical settings. In conclusion, our study underscores the high potential of LLMs to assist radiologists in oncological reporting, providing a consistent and reliable approach to interpreting RECIST 1.1 guidelines. These findings advocate for the continued development and integration of LLMs in radiology to enhance diagnostic accuracy and reporting efficiency.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Çamur E, Cesur T, Güneş YC

Comparison of the Knowledge of Large Language Models and General Radiologist on RECIST

JMIR Preprints. 26/07/2024:64805

DOI: 10.2196/preprints.64805

URL: https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/64805

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.