This comparative analysis evaluates AI models in classifying bladder lesions using VI-RADS, suggesting potential improvements in staging accuracy.
Accurate preoperative staging is vital in bladder cancer management, particularly for assessing muscle invasion. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) combined with the Vesical Imaging–Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) offers a non-invasive and standardized approach for tumor stratification. However, inter-observer variability among radiologists remains a significant limitation. This study investigates the performance of three large language models (LLMs)—ChatGPT (OpenAI; GPT-5.2), Gemini (Google; Gemini 2.0), and Copilot (Microsoft; Copilot based on GPT-5 architecture)—in classifying bladder lesions according to VI-RADS using zero-shot and few-shot prompting strategies. A synthetic dataset of 100 simulated bladder cancer cases was developed from expert-crafted synthetic radiology reports based on structured text descriptors and expert consensus, comprising 20 cases for each VI-RADS category (1–5). Each case included structured imaging descriptors aligned with VI-RADS scoring criteria. The LLMs were evaluated under zero-shot (no examples provided) and few-shot (with illustrative examples) prompting conditions. Performance metrics included accuracy, macro F1 scores, and Cohen’s kappa, with statistical significance assessed using McNemar’s test. Few-shot prompting significantly improved the classification performance of ChatGPT (OpenAI; GPT-5.2) (accuracy: 94%, F1: 0.939) and Gemini (Google; Gemini 2.0) (accuracy: 83%, F1: 0.823) compared to zero-shot. In contrast, Copilot (Microsoft; Copilot based on GPT-5 architecture)‘s accuracy (53%) and F1 score (0.503) declined under few-shot conditions. ChatGPT (OpenAI; GPT-5.2) demonstrated the highest consistency in identifying high-risk lesions (VI-RADS 4–5), followed by Gemini (Google; Gemini 2.0). Few-shot prompting enhances LLM performance in VI-RADS classification, particularly for ChatGPT (OpenAI; GPT-5.2) and Gemini (Google; Gemini 2.0). These findings highlight the potential of AI tools to support radiological decision-making in bladder cancer staging. Further studies using real imaging data and explainable AI are warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Halis et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: