Large Language Model Approach for Zero-Shot Information Extraction and Clustering of Japanese Radiology Reports: Algorithm Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The application of natural language processing in medicine has increased significantly, including tasks such as information extraction and classification. Natural language processing plays a crucial role in structuring free-form radiology reports, facilitating the interpretation of textual content, and enhancing data utility through clustering techniques. Clustering allows for the identification of similar lesions and disease patterns across a broad dataset, making it useful for aggregating information and discovering new insights in medical imaging. However, most publicly available medical datasets are in English, with limited resources in other languages. This scarcity poses a challenge for development of models geared toward non-English downstream tasks. Objective: This study aimed to develop and evaluate an algorithm that uses large language models (LLMs) to extract information from Japanese lung cancer radiology reports and perform clustering analysis. The effectiveness of this approach was assessed and compared with previous supervised methods. Methods: This study employed the MedTxt-RR dataset, comprising 135 Japanese radiology reports from 9 radiologists who interpreted the computed tomography images of 15 lung cancer patients obtained from Radiopaedia. Previously used in the NTCIR-16 (NII Testbeds and Community for Information Access Research) shared task for clustering performance competition, this dataset was ideal for comparing the clustering ability of our algorithm with those of previous methods. The dataset was split into 8 cases for development and 7 for testing, respectively. The study's approach involved using the LLM to extract information pertinent to lung cancer findings and transforming it into numeric features for clustering, using the K-means method. Performance was evaluated using 135 reports for information extraction accuracy and 63 test reports for clustering performance. This study focused on the accuracy of automated systems for extracting tumor size, location, and laterality from clinical reports. The clustering performance was evaluated using normalized mutual information, adjusted mutual information , and the Fowlkes-Mallows index for both the development and test data. Results: The tumor size was accurately identified in 99 out of 135 reports (73.3%), with errors in 36 reports (26.7%), primarily due to missing or incorrect size information. Tumor location and laterality were identified with greater accuracy in 112 out of 135 reports (83%); however, 23 reports (17%) contained errors mainly due to empty values or incorrect data. Clustering performance of the test data yielded an normalized mutual information of 0.6414, adjusted mutual information of 0.5598, and Fowlkes-Mallows index of 0.5354. The proposed method demonstrated superior performance across all evaluation metrics compared to previous methods. Conclusions: The unsupervised LLM approach surpassed the existing supervised methods in clustering Japanese radiology reports. These findings suggest that LLMs hold promise for extracting information from radiology reports and integrating it into disease-specific knowledge structures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".