Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Large language models (LLMs) can interpret radiology reports, but their ability to generate guideline-concordant recommendations from bladder cancer multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) reports remains uncertain. Following TRIPOD-LLM, we retrospectively evaluated nine API-accessed LLMs using 590 mpMRI reports from three hospitals under two input conditions: original Chinese reports and clinician-translated, quality-controlled English reports. Two physicians independently rated each model-generated recommendation on a 1–5 ordinal scale. We analyzed 21,240 ratings using patient-level random-intercept cumulative link mixed models, with paired Wilcoxon tests as secondary exploratory analyses. The association between input condition and physician rating differed across LLMs (likelihood-ratio chi-square = 683.05, df = 8, P < 0.001). Compared with original Chinese input, clinician-translated English input was associated with higher ratings for chatgpt-o3-pro (OR 2.79, 95% CI 2.29–3.41), deepseek-v4-flash (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.19–1.81), claude-opus-4-7 (OR 3.07, 95% CI 2.47–3.82), and gpt-5.5 (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.53–2.32), but with lower ratings for claude-sonnet-4-5 (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.23–0.36; all Holm-adjusted P < 0.001). Four LLMs showed no clear input-condition difference. Center-specific contrasts also depended on input condition and were materially unchanged after adjustment for age, sex, pathological T stage, tumor grade, tumor number, and maximum lesion diameter. Inter-rater agreement was substantial (quadratic weighted kappa range, 0.621–0.743). Readability did not track physician-rated recommendation quality. These findings argue against clinician-translated English as a universal optimization strategy and support model-specific validation of input conditions before clinical deployment. LLM-generated recommendations from mpMRI reports are best positioned as clinician-supervised, imaging-based decision support rather than standalone treatment advice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: