Back

Algorithmic implementation of pancreatic cancer staging guidelines: comparison with a retrieval-augmented large language model

Komaba, A.; Amakawa, A.; Tozuka, R.; Sato, J.; Fujihara, K.; Emoto, M.; Sawada, S.; Kasai, S.; Sakamoto, K.; Shimura, K.; Johno, Y.; Nakamoto, K.; Ichikawa, S.; Johno, H.

2026-07-02 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.06.30.26356912 medRxiv
Show abstract

Purpose: To implement a comprehensive knowledge-based algorithm (KBA) for pancreatic cancer staging based on the current Japanese guidelines and to evaluate its performance as a clinical decision support system in comparison with a retrieval-augmented large language model (LLM) system. Materials and methods: A KBA covering TNM classification, stage classification, and resectability classification was implemented as a web application. The correctness of the system outputs was exhaustively verified for all possible inputs. Subsequently, six non-board-certified radiologists performed pancreatic cancer staging for 12 simulated cases with imaging findings under three conditions: unassisted, LLM-assisted, and KBA-assisted. Staging accuracy and staging time were compared among the three conditions using pairwise proportion z-tests and Welch's t-tests, respectively. Results: In the comparative experiment, staging accuracy was 81.9%, 80.6%, and 98.6% in the unassisted, LLM-assisted, and KBA-assisted conditions, respectively. Mean staging time was 229.2, 401.9, and 196.2 s, respectively. The KBA-assisted condition showed higher accuracy than both the unassisted and LLM-assisted conditions (both p<0.001). Staging time was longer in the LLM-assisted condition than in the other two conditions (both p<0.001). Conclusion: A comprehensive KBA for pancreatic cancer staging based on the current Japanese guidelines was implemented and exhaustively verified. In a preliminary comparative experiment, KBA assistance improved staging accuracy without increasing staging time, whereas LLM assistance increased staging time without improving staging accuracy. These findings suggest that verified KBA systems may be feasible and useful for clinical tasks governed by explicit guideline-based rules.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.4%
2
Annals of Translational Medicine
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
3
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.6%
4
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.7%
5
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.5%
6
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.5%
7
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
8
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 28%
3.7%
9
European Radiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
10
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.6%
11
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
12
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
13
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
14
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
15
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
16
JMIR Medical Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
17
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
18
Frontiers in Microbiology
427 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.1%
19
JMIRx Med
32 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
21
Children
10 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
22
Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
23
Expert Systems with Applications
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
24
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
25
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
26
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.6%
27
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
22 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
29
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
30
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%