MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409605504 · doi:10.2196/70924

Using a Large Language Model for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Classification and Malignancy Prediction to Enhance Breast Ultrasound Diagnosis: Retrospective Study

2025· article· en· W4409605504 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Su Miaojiao, Zong-Yuan Tao, Zhiliang Hong, Sheng Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBI-RADSPreprintMalignancyBreast imagingUltrasoundMedicineComputer scienceRadiologyMammographyBreast cancerPathologyCancerWorld Wide WebInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Breast ultrasound is essential for evaluating breast nodules, with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) providing standardized classification. However, interobserver variability among radiologists can affect diagnostic accuracy. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT-4 have shown potential in medical imaging interpretation. This study explores its feasibility in improving BI-RADS classification consistency and malignancy prediction compared to radiologists. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of using LLMs, particularly ChatGPT-4, to assess the consistency and diagnostic accuracy of standardized breast ultrasound imaging reports, using pathology as the reference standard. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed breast nodule ultrasound data from 671 female patients (mean 45.82, SD 9.20 years; range 26-75 years) who underwent biopsy or surgical excision at our hospital between June 2019 and June 2024. ChatGPT-4 was used to interpret BI-RADS classifications and predict benign versus malignant nodules. The study compared the model's performance to that of two senior radiologists (≥15 years of experience) and two junior radiologists (<5 years of experience) using key diagnostic metrics, including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, P values, and odds ratios with 95% CIs. Two diagnostic models were evaluated: (1) image interpretation model, where ChatGPT-4 classified nodules based on BI-RADS features, and (2) image-to-text-LLM model, where radiologists provided textual descriptions, and ChatGPT-4 determined malignancy probability based on keywords. Radiologists were blinded to pathological outcomes, and BI-RADS classifications were finalized through consensus. Results: ChatGPT-4 achieved an overall BI-RADS classification accuracy of 96.87%, outperforming junior radiologists (617/671, 91.95% and 604/671, 90.01%, P<.01). For malignancy prediction, ChatGPT-4 achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82 (95% CI 0.79-0.85), an accuracy of 80.63% (541/671 cases), a sensitivity of 90.56% (259/286 cases), and a specificity of 73.51% (283/385 cases). The image interpretation model demonstrated performance comparable to senior radiologists, while the image-to-text-LLM model further improved diagnostic accuracy for all radiologists, increasing their sensitivity and specificity significantly (P<.001). Statistical analyses, including the McNemar test and DeLong test, confirmed that ChatGPT-4 outperformed junior radiologists (P<.01) and showed noninferiority compared to senior radiologists (P>.05). Pathological diagnoses served as the reference standard, ensuring robust evaluation reliability. Conclusions: Integrating ChatGPT-4 into an image-to-text-LLM workflow improves BI-RADS classification accuracy and supports radiologists in breast ultrasound diagnostics. These results demonstrate its potential as a decision-support tool to enhance diagnostic consistency and reduce variability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207