MEGA Hub

Improving O-RADS Risk Stratification from Ultrasound Reports: A Comparative Evaluation of Hybrid versus End-to-End LLM Reasoning Strategies

Authors

Do you know Xiaotong Tan?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Chunli Qiu?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Xin Liu?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Qing Huang?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Guangli Zhou?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Bo Gao?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Xiaoyan Song?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Shuyan Wang?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Xiuqin Wang?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Wufeng Xue?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Ruobing Huang?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Dong Ni?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Guowei Tao?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Jun Cheng?You can claim authorship or link another user.

Abstract

Background: Automating clinical guideline-based decision-making with large language models (LLMs) remains challenging because of reliability, hallucination, and limited interpretability. We compared the performance of LLMs and reasoning strategies for automated Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) classification from free-text pelvic ultrasound reports. Methods: In this retrospective study, consecutive patients with ovarian masses who underwent pelvic ultrasound were included. Eight LLMs were tested with three reasoning strategies: implicit-knowledge end-to-end, rule-informed end-to-end, and a feature-based hybrid architecture that decoupled feature extraction from rule-based classification. The reference standard was O-RADS categorization established by expert consensus. Results: A total of 310 women with 390 ovarian masses were evaluated. The feature-based hybrid architecture using Gemini 3.6 Flash demonstrated the best performance, achieving an accuracy of 99.2% (387 of 390) and almost perfect agreement with the reference standard (weighted kappa = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99-1.00). Its performance surpassed that of original clinical reports (accuracy, 87.7% [342 of 390]; weighted kappa = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.91-0.96) and end-to-end LLM strategies (accuracy range, 65.6% [256 of 390] to 95.9% [374 of 390]). For structured feature extraction, Gemini 3.6 Flash demonstrated higher overall accuracy than Claude Fable 5 (98.9% vs 97.8%; P < 0.001). The hybrid architecture reduced misclassification errors and mitigated the overstaging tendency observed in original reports. Conclusion: The feature-based hybrid LLM architecture that separates clinical feature extraction from deterministic guideline execution enables highly accurate, reliable, and interpretable automated O-RADS classification, providing a promising approach for standardized, guideline-based clinical decision-making.

Community

00

Publication notes

Author note
Main manuscript: 20 pages, 5 figures, and 2 tables; supplemental material: 11 pages, 1 figure, and 3 tables