Accuracy and reproducibility of large language model measurements of liver metastases: comparison with radiologist measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy and reproducibility of lesion-diameter measurements performed by three state-of-the-art LLMs with those obtained by radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study using a public database, 83 patients with solitary colorectal-cancer liver metastases were identified. From each CT series, a radiologist extracted the single axial slice showing the maximal tumor diameter and converted it to a 512 × 512-pixel PNG image (window level 50 HU, window width 400 HU) with pixel size encoded in the filename. Three LLMs-ChatGPT-o3 (OpenAI), Gemini 2.5 Pro (Google), and Claude 4 Opus (Anthropic)-were prompted to estimate the longest lesion diameter twice, ≥ 1 week apart. Two board-certified radiologists (12 years' experience each) independently measured the same single slice images and one radiologist repeated the measurements after ≥ 1 week. Agreement was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); 95% confidence intervals were obtained by bootstrap resampling (5 000 iterations). RESULTS: Radiologist inter-observer agreement was excellent (ICC = 0.95, 95% CI 0.86-0.99); intra-observer agreement was 0.98 (95% CI 0.94-0.99). Gemini achieved good model-to-radiologist agreement (ICC = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.89) and intra-model reproducibility (ICC = 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.87). GPT-o3 showed moderate agreement (ICC = 0.52) and poor reproducibility (ICC = 0.25); Claude showed poor agreement (ICC = 0.07) and reproducibility (ICC = 0.47). CONCLUSION: LLMs do not yet match radiologists in measuring colorectal cancer liver metastasis; however, Gemini's good agreement and reproducibility highlight the rapid progress of image interpretation capability of LLMs.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | medium |
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 | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".