MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411373796 · doi:10.2196/70967

Leveraging GPT-4o for Automated Extraction and Categorization of CAD-RADS Features From Free-Text Coronary CT Angiography Reports: Diagnostic Study

2025· article· en· W4411373796 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Youmei Chen, Mengshi Dong, Zhanao Meng, Abudushalamu Muhetaier, Chao Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationBI-RADSCoronary angiographyCADPreprintFeature (linguistics)Computer scienceMedicineRadiologyArtificial intelligenceFeature extractionInternal medicineMammographyEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Despite the Coronary Artery Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) providing a standardized approach, radiologists continue to favor free-text reports. This preference creates significant challenges for data extraction and analysis in longitudinal studies, potentially limiting large-scale research and quality assessment initiatives. Objective: To evaluate the ability of the generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)-4o model to convert real-world coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) free-text reports into structured data and automatically identify CAD-RADS categories and P categories. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed CCTA reports from January 2024 and July 2024. A subset of 25 reports was used for prompt engineering to instruct the large language models (LLMs) in extracting CAD-RADS categories, P categories, and the presence of myocardial bridges and noncalcified plaques. Reports were processed using the GPT-4o API (application programming interface) and custom Python scripts. The ground truth was established by radiologists based on the CAD-RADS 2.0 guidelines. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1-score. Intrarater reliability was assessed using Cohen κ coefficient. Results: Among 999 patients (median age 66 y, range 58-74; 650 males), CAD-RADS categorization showed accuracy of 0.98-1.00 (95% CI 0.9730-1.0000), sensitivity of 0.95-1.00 (95% CI 0.9191-1.0000), specificity of 0.98-1.00 (95% CI 0.9669-1.0000), and F1-score of 0.96-1.00 (95% CI 0.9253-1.0000). P categories demonstrated accuracy of 0.97-1.00 (95% CI 0.9569-0.9990), sensitivity from 0.90 to 1.00 (95% CI 0.8085-1.0000), specificity from 0.97 to 1.00 (95% CI 0.9533-1.0000), and F1-score from 0.91 to 0.99 (95% CI 0.8377-0.9967). Myocardial bridge detection achieved an accuracy of 0.98 (95% CI 0.9680-0.9870), and noncalcified coronary plaques detection showed an accuracy of 0.98 (95% CI 0.9680-0.9870). Cohen κ values for all classifications exceeded 0.98. Conclusions: The GPT-4o model efficiently and accurately converts CCTA free-text reports into structured data, excelling in CAD-RADS classification, plaque burden assessment, and detection of myocardial bridges and calcified plaques.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.364 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207