Back

Creating a scalable CT yield metric for pulmonary embolisms in the emergency department using an open-source large language model

Wiseman, B.; Li, H.; Mason, E.; Lonergan, K.; Mitchell, R.; Hayward, J.

2026-01-16 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.01.13.26344087 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCT scans are the gold-standard diagnostic test for pulmonary embolisms (PE). Despite stable PE prevalence, CT use is rising in emergency departments (EDs), suggesting test overuse. Current methods for measuring test yield are error-prone or not scalable, thus we tested the accuracy of an open-source, foundational large language model (LLM) for identifying PEs from free-text radiology reports. MethodsOur retrospective diagnostic accuracy study used 10,173 CT-PE reports from 216 radiologists at 38 EDs across Alberta, Canada from April 2021-April 2023. Reports were classified as PE present, PE absent, or Indeterminate by human labelers. An LLM (LLAMA-2-70B) was then prompt-engineered to label the reports. Label accuracy was compared against ICD-10-CA codes and a rule-based natural language processing (NLP) algorithm (ChartExtract; University of Toronto). Descriptive statistics were performed to analyze results. Results1070 (11.8%) reports were PE positive. The LLM achieved an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 99.1%, outperforming both ICD-10-CA (AUC=90.6%) and ChartExtract (AUC=86.5%), while demonstrating a 16-25% higher sensitivity (LLM: sensitivity=98.8%, specificity=99.1%; ICD-10-CA: sensitivity=82.0%, specificity=99.1%; ChartExtract: sensitivity=73.6%, specificity=99.4%). The LLM took an average of 143 milliseconds to label each report and produce a paragraph justifying the classification. ConclusionsOpen-source, foundational LLMs are an accurate and scalable method for interpreting radiology reports and identifying PEs from ED data. If IT resources are available, this is a cost-effective approach to quality metric derivation for diagnostic processes in large health systems.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.