Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Development of a Large-scale Dataset of Chest Computed Tomography Reports in Japanese and a High-performance Finding Classification Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Machine translation plus expert revision can build a large Japanese radiology report dataset, and a compact Japanese BERT fine-tuned on it extracts 18 structured chest CT findings at or above GPT-4o's level in most conditions.

desk verdict The released dataset and model are worth having, but the headline F1 claims don't survive contact with the paper's own table, and the evaluation labels are not what the abstract implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15907 v1 pith:YHMLVEKA submitted 2024-12-20 cs.CL cs.AI

Yosuke Yamagishi , Yuta Nakamura , Tomohiro Kikuchi , Yuki Sonoda , Hiroshi Hirakawa , Shintaro Kano , Satoshi Nakamura , Shouhei Hanaoka
show 2 more authors
Takeharu Yoshikawa Osamu Abe
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords chestCTreportsJapaneseradiologyNLPmachinetranslationstructuredfindingclassificationBERTmultilingualmedicaldatasetsCT-RATE-JPNreport
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper addresses a concrete gap: Japan performs more CT scans than almost any country, yet no large-scale Japanese radiology report dataset exists for training medical language models. The authors translate the English CT-RATE corpus of 24,283 chest CT reports into Japanese with GPT-4o mini, have a two-stage radiologist review produce 150 validated reference reports, and release the result as CT-RATE-JPN. They then fine-tune a Japanese BERT model, CT-BERT-JPN, to turn free-text Japanese reports into 18 structured CT findings. The paper claims this compact model beats GPT-4o in 11 of 18 conditions and keeps F1 at or above 0.95 in most conditions. If correct, the work gives Japanese medical NLP an open dataset and model without requiring a prohibitively expensive fully manual translation effort.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the CT-RATE-JPN construction pipeline followed by fine-tuning. GPT-4o mini translates each report's Findings and Impression sections separately; a 150-report subset is then revised by radiology residents and board-certified radiologists to form the evaluation reference; and the pretrained Japanese BERT checkpoint is fine-tuned as a multi-label binary classifier over the 18 findings using binary cross-entropy loss. The comparison baseline is the same 18-way extraction run through GPT-4o from a prompt. What makes the result work is that the translated corpus preserves report structure well enough for BERT fine-tuning, while the small expert-reviewed subset supplies a trustworthy yardstick.

What would settle it

Have two or more Japanese radiologists independently annotate the 18 findings in a fresh set of Japanese CT reports (or re-annotate the 150 validation reports from the images), then recompute CT-BERT-JPN's F1 against that human annotation. If the scores fall materially below the reported values, the apparent performance rests on label noise in the inherited ground truth rather than true extraction ability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a hybrid pipeline—machine translation for scale, expert radiologist revision for validation—can produce a Japanese radiology corpus good enough to train a specialized extractor that outperforms a general-purpose large language model. The reported evidence is CT-BERT-JPN's F1 advantage over GPT-4o in 11 of 18 findings, with the largest gaps in lymphadenopathy, interlobular septal thickening, and atelectasis, and with AUC-ROC above 0.98 in every condition. The paper also reports that the model's ranking behavior is nearly unchanged when fed raw machine translations instead of radiologist-refined text, suggesting the training signal does not depend on pristine input.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 18 structured labels inherited from CT-RATE are accurate enough to serve as ground truth: the radiologists revised only the Japanese translations of the validation reports, not the findings themselves, so if those machine-generated labels contain systematic noise the reported F1 scores are optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Japanese radiology reports can be automatically structured into 18 CT findings without a manually translated corpus; machine translation plus a small expert review set is sufficient.
  • A roughly 110-million-parameter BERT model can outperform a much larger general-purpose LLM on this domain-specific task, which lowers the compute barrier for hospital-level deployment.
  • The model's AUC-ROC moves by no more than 0.011 when input switches from radiologist-refined to raw machine-translated reports, implying downstream systems could accept raw translated text directly.
  • The open dataset and model give the Japanese medical NLP community a reproducible foundation for vision-language models that link CT volumes to Japanese text.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same translation-plus-spot-check recipe could be applied to other low-resource languages and medical specialties, as long as the source corpus permits derivative redistribution.
  • Because the 18 labels were inherited from the source dataset's RadBERT-generated annotations rather than re-annotated by the reviewing radiologists, the reported F1 scores should be read as performance against those inherited labels; a native Japanese report corpus would be a stiffer test.
  • The abstract and the full-text results table disagree about how many conditions reached perfect scores (four in the abstract, three in the table), so any citation of a specific count should be checked against Table 3.
  • The findings with the largest translation-related drops (peribronchial thickening and consolidation) hint that a small glossary of canonical Japanese radiology terms could recover most lost performance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs CT-RATE-JPN, a Japanese version of the CT-RATE chest CT report dataset, by machine-translating 22,778 training reports with GPT-4o mini and subjecting 150 validation reports to a two-phase radiologist revision process. It then fine-tunes a Japanese BERT model (CT-BERT-JPN) to predict 18 structured findings and compares its performance with GPT-4o. The paper reports high translation quality (BLEU about 0.69--0.73; ROUGE-L about 0.84--0.85), and claims that CT-BERT-JPN outperforms GPT-4o in 11 of 18 findings, maintains F1 above 0.95 in 14 findings, achieves perfect scores in four findings, and is robust to differences between machine-translated and radiologist-refined inputs.

Significance. If the performance claims were valid, this would be a valuable open contribution: a large-scale Japanese CT report dataset, a publicly released model, and a reproducible hybrid workflow of machine translation plus expert revision. The authors are explicit about their prompts, make the dataset and model available on Hugging Face, and frame the work as a step toward Japanese medical vision-language research. However, the headline quantitative claims rest on evaluation labels that are not independent of the training labels, and the abstract's numbers are not supported by Table 3. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main message and must be resolved before the performance claims can be accepted as reported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, Dataset Overview; Abstract] The evaluation ground truth for the 150 validation reports consists of CT-RATE's auto-generated structured labels, which were produced by a RadBERT model trained on a manually labeled subset; the paper explicitly says the authors 'also utilized these structured labels' for CT-BERT-JPN. The two-phase radiologist review revised the Japanese translations of the 150 reports, not the findings labels. Consequently, the training labels and the validation labels come from the same automatic pipeline. If that RadBERT labeler has systematic errors, CT-BERT-JPN can learn those errors, and its F1 scores will overstate agreement with true clinical findings. The comparison with GPT-4o is also asymmetric, since GPT-4o was not trained on this label source. Please provide independent radiologist annotation of the 18 findings on the validation reports, or explicitly reframe the reported metrics as agreement with CT-RATE's auto-generated labels rather than as clinical finding accuracy. The abstract's description of a 'rigorously validated evaluation dataset through expert radiologist review' is currently misleading.
  2. [Abstract; Table 3] The abstract states that CT-BERT-JPN 'maintained F1 scores exceeding 0.95 in 14 out of 18 conditions' and that the model 'achieved perfect scores across all metrics in four conditions (cardiomegaly, hiatal hernia, atelectasis, and interlobular septal thickening)'. Table 3 shows F1 = 0.958 for cardiomegaly, 1.000 for hiatal hernia, 0.990 for atelectasis, and 0.933 for interlobular septal thickening; the rows with 1.000 across accuracy, precision, recall, F1, and AUC-ROC are Pericardial effusion, Hiatal hernia, and Mosaic attenuation pattern. Counting the F1 column in Table 3, at most 11 conditions reach F1 at least 0.95 (or 10 under a strict 'exceeding 0.95' reading), not 14. These discrepancies concern the paper's headline quantitative claims and must be corrected consistently in the abstract, results, and discussion.
  3. [CT-BERT-JPN Performance Evaluation; Table 4; Figure 6] The evaluation section refers to 'optimal threshold search' in the robustness analysis, but the manuscript does not state whether the per-condition classification thresholds for CT-BERT-JPN were selected using the same 150-report validation set on which the final metrics are reported. If so, the precision/recall/F1 figures in Table 3 are optimistically biased. In addition, the claim of superiority over GPT-4o in 11 of 18 conditions is based only on point estimates with no confidence intervals or significance tests; some differences are very small (e.g., coronary artery wall calcification 0.978 vs 0.977; emphysema 0.952 vs 0.951), and the validation set contains classes with as few as 7 positive cases. Please report the threshold-selection procedure, supply bootstrap confidence intervals or McNemar tests for the CT-BERT-JPN versus GPT-4o comparison, and state whether the same procedure was applied to GPT-4o.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Data Availability] The dataset name appears as 'CT RATE-JPN' in the Data Availability section; this should be 'CT-RATE-JPN' to match the name used throughout the rest of the manuscript.
  2. [Methods, Translation for CT-RATE-JPN] The two-phase radiologist review is described in terms of task allocation, but the manuscript does not state how disagreements between residents and senior radiologists were resolved or report any inter-rater agreement measure; a sentence on adjudication would improve the reproducibility of the validation protocol.
  3. [Methods, Dataset Overview] The selection of the 150 validation reports from the 1,304-patient CT-RATE validation cohort is described only as 'randomly selected'; reporting the random seed or a deterministic selection protocol would support exact reproducibility.
  4. [Discussion; Reference [18]] The Discussion cites reference [18] for CT-CLIP, but reference [18] is the GenerateCT paper; please check whether this is the intended citation and correct it if not.
  5. [Discussion, Model Performance and Evaluation] The Discussion states that 'F1 scores consistently above 0.95' were observed, but Table 3 reports several F1 values below 0.95 (e.g., Medical material 0.875, Peribronchial thickening 0.833, Consolidation 0.828); this wording should be qualified to refer to the majority of conditions, not all findings.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Evaluation labels are inherited from CT-RATE's RadBERT auto-labeler; expert review fixed translations, not findings, so the reported F1 is partly agreement with the training-label source.

  1. other [Methods, Dataset Overview; Methods, CT-BERT-JPN Performance Evaluation; Abstract]
    "To ensure accuracy and reliability in the evaluation data, we conducted a comprehensive manual correction process for 150 reports from the validation dataset. ... The creators of the CT-RATE dataset developed a structured findings model based on the RadBERT architecture [20,21], trained on the manually labeled subset to label the remaining cases. ... We also utilized these structured labels in the development of a Japanese structured findings model for CT-RATE-JPN. ..."

    The 150-report test set is described as 'revised by radiologists,' but the revision process described in Methods applies to the Japanese translations, not to the 18 structured finding labels. Those labels come from CT-RATE's RadBERT auto-labeler, the same label source used as CT-BERT-JPN's training targets. CT-BERT-JPN is therefore optimized to reproduce RadBERT's label decisions, and the reported F1/AUC values measure agreement with that auto-labeler rather than with an independent radiologist ground truth. Systematic errors in the auto-generated labels are scored as correct performance. This is not a formal equation-level identity, but it is a shared-source evaluation dependency that makes the headline 'expert-validated' performance claims partially self-referential.

full rationale

This paper contains no formal derivation chain whose conclusion is equivalent to its assumptions; the main pipeline is empirical (machine translation followed by BERT fine-tuning). There is no load-bearing self-citation: the references to CT-RATE, RadBERT, and pretrained BERT are external prior work, and no uniqueness theorem or author-imported ansatz is invoked. The one substantive circularity concern is the evaluation ground truth. The paper states that CT-RATE's 18 structured labels were produced by a RadBERT model trained on a manually labeled subset, and that the authors 'also utilized these structured labels' to train CT-BERT-JPN. The 150-report validation set was manually corrected only in its translation; the structured labels were not re-annotated by the reviewing radiologists. Consequently, the reported F1 scores and the GPT-4o comparison are computed against the same automatic label source used for training. That makes the 'rigorously validated evaluation dataset' claim misleading and the headline performance numbers partly self-referential, though not circular in the strict definitional sense. A more conservative score would treat this as a label-independence limitation rather than derivation-level circularity; given the weight placed on 'expert radiologist review' in the abstract, a modest circularity flag is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data besides the implicit classification threshold. The central assumption is that CT-RATE's auto-generated labels are trustworthy; radiologists only revised the text. The new artifacts are software and data products, not postulated entities like particles or forces.

free parameters (1)
  • Per-condition classification threshold = Not reported; 'optimal threshold search' mentioned in Discussion
    If thresholds were tuned against the 150-report validation set, reported precision, recall, and F1 values are fit to the test data rather than computed at a fixed 0.5 threshold.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption CT-RATE structured labels are reliable ground truth
    The 18 labels were produced by a RadBERT model trained on a manually labeled subset; the present paper uses them for training and evaluation without re-annotating the Japanese validation reports.
  • domain assumption Machine-translated reports preserve label-relevant clinical content
    The 22,778 training reports were never manually checked; only 150 validation reports were reviewed. The paper relies on BLEU and ROUGE scores plus qualitative examples to assert that translation quality is sufficient.
  • domain assumption BLEU and ROUGE adequately measure medical translation quality
    The paper uses these surface metrics as primary evidence of translation quality while also reporting that radiologists found substantial terminology errors needing correction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Development of a Large-scale Dataset of Chest Computed Tomography Reports in Japanese and a High-performance Finding Classification Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YHMLVEKA

@misc{pith2026241215907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Development of a Large-scale Dataset of Chest Computed Tomography Reports in Japanese and a High-performance Finding Classification Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YHMLVEKA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15907}
}
read the original abstract

Background: Recent advances in large language models highlight the need for high-quality multilingual medical datasets. While Japan leads globally in CT scanner deployment and utilization, the lack of large-scale Japanese radiology datasets has hindered the development of specialized language models for medical imaging analysis. Objective: To develop a comprehensive Japanese CT report dataset through machine translation and establish a specialized language model for structured finding classification. Additionally, to create a rigorously validated evaluation dataset through expert radiologist review. Methods: We translated the CT-RATE dataset (24,283 CT reports from 21,304 patients) into Japanese using GPT-4o mini. The training dataset consisted of 22,778 machine-translated reports, while the validation dataset included 150 radiologist-revised reports. We developed CT-BERT-JPN based on "tohoku-nlp/bert-base-japanese-v3" architecture for extracting 18 structured findings from Japanese radiology reports. Results: Translation metrics showed strong performance with BLEU scores of 0.731 and 0.690, and ROUGE scores ranging from 0.770 to 0.876 for Findings and from 0.748 to 0.857 for Impression sections. CT-BERT-JPN demonstrated superior performance compared to GPT-4o in 11 out of 18 conditions, including lymphadenopathy (+14.2%), interlobular septal thickening (+10.9%), and atelectasis (+7.4%). The model maintained F1 scores exceeding 0.95 in 14 out of 18 conditions and achieved perfect scores in four conditions. Conclusions: Our study establishes a robust Japanese CT report dataset and demonstrates the effectiveness of a specialized language model for structured finding classification. The hybrid approach of machine translation and expert validation enables the creation of large-scale medical datasets while maintaining high quality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15907 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the data selection process for CT-RATE-JPN. The figure illustrates the workflow for selecting cases from the CT-RATE dataset, including training and validation cohorts. Translation for CT-RATE-JPN For CT-RATE-JPN, we applied machine translation using GPT-4o mini (API version, "gpt-4o-mini-2024-07-18") [22], a lightweight, fast version of OpenAI’s GPT-4o model [23]. GPT-4o mini is known for producing high… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Workflow for the translation and validation process in constructing CT-RATE￾JPN. The figure outlines the application of machine translation using GPT-4o mini for the training dataset and the two-phase manual correction process for 150 validation reports. Phase 1 involved initial revisions by radiology residents, while Phase 2 consisted of expert review and refinement by board-certified radiologists [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the CT-BERT-JPN development workflow. The figure outlines the input data preparation from CT-RATE-JPN and the output as a fine-tuned BERT model (CT-BERT-JPN) for structured finding classification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bar plots showing the data distribution across different findings, sorted in descending order. Top: Training dataset distribution, Bottom: Validation dataset distribution. The number above each bar represents the number of positive samples for each condition [PITH_FUL…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    GPT-4 Technical Report

    OpenAI. GPT-4 Technical Report. arXiv preprint arXiv:230308774. Published online 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Multilingual Large Language Model: A Survey of Resources, Taxonomy and Frontiers

    Qin L, Chen Q, Zhou Y, et al. Multilingual Large Language Model: A Survey of Resources, Taxonomy and Frontiers. Published online April 7, 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.04925

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.04925 2024

  3. [3]

    Gemma: Open Models Based on Gemini Research and Technology

    Team G, Mesnard T, Hardin C, et al. Gemma: Open Models Based on Gemini Research and Technology. Published online April 16, 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.08295

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.08295 2024

  4. [4]

    Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Size

    Team G, Riviere M, Pathak S, et al. Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Size. Published online October 2, 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2408.00118

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.00118 2024

  5. [5]

    Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

    Tu T, Azizi S, Driess D, et al. Towards Generalist Biomedical AI. NEJM AI. 2024;1(3):AIoa2300138. doi:10.1056/AIoa2300138

    doi:10.1056/aioa2300138 2024

  6. [6]

    LLaVA-Med: Training a Large Language-and- Vision Assistant for Biomedicine in One Day

    Li C, Wong C, Zhang S, et al. LLaVA-Med: Training a Large Language-and- Vision Assistant for Biomedicine in One Day. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2023;36:28541-28564

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Towards Expert-Level Medical Question Answering with Large Language Models

    Singhal K, Tu T, Gottweis J, et al. Towards Expert-Level Medical Question Answering with Large Language Models. Published online May 16, 2023. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.09617

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.09617 2023

  8. [8]

    Geographic Distribution of CT, MRI and PET Devices in Japan: A Longitudinal Analysis Based on National Census Data

    Matsumoto M, Koike S, Kashima S, Awai K. Geographic Distribution of CT, MRI and PET Devices in Japan: A Longitudinal Analysis Based on National Census Data. PLOS ONE. 2015;10(5):e0126036. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0126036

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0126036 2015

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Number of computed tomography scanners and regional disparities based on population and medical resources in Japan

    Urikura A, Yoshida T, Matsubara K, Nomura K, Hoshino T, Takagi T. Number of computed tomography scanners and regional disparities based on population and medical resources in Japan. Radiol Phys Technol. 2023;16(3):355-365. doi:10.1007/s12194-023- 00725-2

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Cross-lingual Natural Language Processing on Limited Annotated Case/Radiology Reports in English and Japanese: Insights from the Real-MedNLP Workshop

    Yada S, Nakamura Y, Wakamiya S, Aramaki E. Cross-lingual Natural Language Processing on Limited Annotated Case/Radiology Reports in English and Japanese: Insights from the Real-MedNLP Workshop. Methods of Information in Medicine. Published online October 29, 2024. doi:10.1055/...

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Developing Generalist Foundation Models from a Multimodal Dataset for 3D Computed Tomography

    Hamamci IE, Er S, Almas F, et al. Developing Generalist Foundation Models from a Multimodal Dataset for 3D Computed Tomography. Published online October 16,

  4. [12]

    Accessed November 16, 2024

    nlp-waseda/JMMLU · Datasets at Hugging Face. Accessed November 16, 2024. https://huggingface.co/datasets/nlp-waseda/JMMLU

    2024

  5. [13]

    JMMMU: A Japanese Massive Multi- discipline Multimodal Understanding Benchmark for Culture-aware Evaluation

    Onohara S, Miyai A, Imajuku Y, et al. JMMMU: A Japanese Massive Multi- discipline Multimodal Understanding Benchmark for Culture-aware Evaluation. Published online October 22, 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.17250

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding

    Hendrycks D, Burns C, Basart S, et al. Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding. Published online January 12, 2021. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2009.03300

    2021 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Aligning AI With Shared Human Values

    Hendrycks D, Burns C, Basart S, et al. Aligning AI With Shared Human Values. Published online February 17, 2023. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2008.02275

    2023 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    MMMU: A Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark for Expert AGI

    Yue X, Ni Y, Zhang K, et al. MMMU: A Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark for Expert AGI. In: ; 2024:9556-9567. Accessed November 14, 2024. https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/CVPR2024/html/Yue_MMMU_A_Massive_Multi - discipline_Multimodal...

    2024

  9. [17]

    JMedBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Japanese Biomedical Large Language Models

    Jiang J, Huang J, Aizawa A. JMedBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Japanese Biomedical Large Language Models. Published online September 20, 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.13317

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    GenerateCT: Text-Conditional Generation of 3D Chest CT Volumes

    Hamamci IE, Er S, Sekuboyina A, et al. GenerateCT: Text-Conditional Generation of 3D Chest CT Volumes. Published online July 12, 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.16037

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    CT2Rep: Automated Radiology Report Generation for 3D Medical Imaging

    Hamamci IE, Er S, Menze B. CT2Rep: Automated Radiology Report Generation for 3D Medical Imaging. Published online July 4, 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.06801

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    RadBERT: Adapting Transformer-based Language Models to Radiology

    Yan A, McAuley J, Lu X, et al. RadBERT: Adapting Transformer-based Language Models to Radiology. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence. 2022;4(4):e210258. doi:10.1148/ryai.210258

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding

    Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, Toutanova K. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume ...

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Accessed November 14,

    GPT-4o mini: advancing cost-efficient intelligence. Accessed November 14,

  15. [23]

    Accessed November 14, 2024

    Hello GPT-4o | OpenAI. Accessed November 14, 2024. https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/

    2024

  16. [24]

    https://openai.com/index/gpt-4o-mini-advancing-cost-efficient-intelligence/

  17. [25]

    CCNet: Extracting High Quality Monolingual Datasets from Web Crawl Data

    Wenzek G, Lachaux MA, Conneau A, et al. CCNet: Extracting High Quality Monolingual Datasets from Web Crawl Data. In: Calzolari N, Béchet F, Blache P, et al., eds. Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. European Language Resources Association; ...

    2020

  18. [26]

    March 11, 2024

    tohoku-nlp/bert-base-japanese-v3 · Hugging Face. March 11, 2024. Accessed November 14, 2024. https://huggingface.co/tohoku-nlp/bert-base-japanese-v3

    2024

  19. [27]

    Accessed December 12, 2024

    Wikimedia Downloads. Accessed December 12, 2024. https://dumps.wikimedia.org/

    2024

  20. [28]

    https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.494

    2020

  21. [29]

    Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scale

    Conneau A, Khandelwal K, Goyal N, et al. Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scale. In: Jurafsky D, Chai J, Schluter N, Tetreault J, eds. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Li...

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Accessed December 12, 2024

    MeCab: Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer. Accessed December 12, 2024. https://taku910.github.io/mecab/

    2024

  23. [31]

    Publicly Available Clinical BERT Embeddings

    Alsentzer E, Murphy J, Boag W, et al. Publicly Available Clinical BERT Embeddings. In: Rumshisky A, Roberts K, Bethard S, Naumann T, eds. Proceedings of the 2nd Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop. Association for Computational Linguistics; 2019:72-78. doi:10.18653/v...

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining

    Lee J, Yoon W, Kim S, et al. BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics. 2020;36(4):1234-1240. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btz682

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Preparing a collection of radiology examinations for distribution and retrieval

    Demner-Fushman D, Kohli MD, Rosenman MB, et al. Preparing a collection of radiology examinations for distribution and retrieval. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(2):304-310. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocv080

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    Bleu: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation

    Papineni K, Roukos S, Ward T, Zhu WJ. Bleu: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation. In: Isabelle P, Charniak E, Lin D, eds. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics; 200...

    2002

  27. [35]

    ROUGE: A Package for Automatic Evaluation of Summaries

    Lin CY. ROUGE: A Package for Automatic Evaluation of Summaries. In: Text Summarization Branches Out. Association for Computational Linguistics; 2004:74-81. Accessed November 14, 2024. https://aclanthology.org/W04-1013

    2004

  28. [36]

    mT5: A Massively Multilingual Pre-trained Text-to-Text Transformer

    Xue L, Constant N, Roberts A, et al. mT5: A Massively Multilingual Pre-trained Text-to-Text Transformer. In: Toutanova K, Rumshisky A, Zettlemoyer L, et al., eds. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics:...

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    MIMIC-CXR, a de-identified publicly available database of chest radiographs with free-text reports

    Johnson AEW, Pollard TJ, Berkowitz SJ, et al. MIMIC-CXR, a de-identified publicly available database of chest radiographs with free-text reports. Sci Data. 2019;6:317. doi:10.1038/s41597-019-0322-0

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    AMOS: A Large-Scale Abdominal Multi-Organ Benchmark for Versatile Medical Image Segmentation

    Ji Y, Bai H, Ge C, et al. AMOS: A Large-Scale Abdominal Multi-Organ Benchmark for Versatile Medical Image Segmentation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2022;35:36722-36732

    2022

  31. [39]

    Accessed December 12, 2024

    [2407.21783] The Llama 3 Herd of Models. Accessed December 12, 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    How Multilingual is Multilingual BERT? In: Korhonen A, Traum D, Màrquez L, eds

    Pires T, Schlinger E, Garrette D. How Multilingual is Multilingual BERT? In: Korhonen A, Traum D, Màrquez L, eds. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics; 2019:4996-5001. doi:10.18653/v1...

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    InternVL: Scaling up Vision Foundation Models and Aligning for Generic Visual-Linguistic Tasks

    Chen Z, Wu J, Wang W, et al. InternVL: Scaling up Vision Foundation Models and Aligning for Generic Visual-Linguistic Tasks. In: ; 2024:24185-24198. Accessed November 15, 2024. https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/CVPR2024/html/Chen_InternVL_Scaling_up_Visi on_Foundation_Mode...

    2024

  34. [42]

    End-to-End Approach for Structuring Radiology Reports

    Sugimoto K, Takeda T, Wada S, et al. End-to-End Approach for Structuring Radiology Reports. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2020;270:203-207. doi:10.3233/SHTI200151

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    RadGraph: Extracting Clinical Entities and Relations from Radiology Reports

    Jain S, Agrawal A, Saporta A, et al. RadGraph: Extracting Clinical Entities and Relations from Radiology Reports. Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks. 2021;1. Accessed November 15, 2024. https://datasets-benchmarks- proceed...

    2021

  36. [44]

    CheXpert: A Large Chest Radiograph Dataset with Uncertainty Labels and Expert Comparison

    Irvin J, Rajpurkar P, Ko M, et al. CheXpert: A Large Chest Radiograph Dataset with Uncertainty Labels and Expert Comparison. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2019;33(01):590-597. doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.3301590

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    Release of Pre-Trained Models for the Japanese Language

    Sawada K, Zhao T, Shing M, et al. Release of Pre-Trained Models for the Japanese Language. In: Calzolari N, Kan MY, Hoste V, Lenci A, Sakti S, Xue N, eds. Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LR...

    2024

  38. [46]

    Assessment of Follow-Up for Pulmonary Nodules from Radiology Reports with Natural Language Processing

    Sugimoto K, Wada S, Konishi S, et al. Assessment of Follow-Up for Pulmonary Nodules from Radiology Reports with Natural Language Processing. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2024;316:1795-1799. doi:10.3233/SHTI240779

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    BERT-based Transfer Learning in Sentence-level Anatomic Classification of Free-Text Radiology Reports

    Nishigaki D, Suzuki Y, Wataya T, et al. BERT-based Transfer Learning in Sentence-level Anatomic Classification of Free-Text Radiology Reports. Radiol Artif Intell. 2023;5(2):e220097. doi:10.1148/ryai.220097

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    December 9, 2024

    YYama0/CT-BERT-JPN · Hugging Face. December 9, 2024. Accessed December 10, 2024. https://huggingface.co/YYama0/CT-BERT-JPN Supplementary Materials Supplementary Table 1. Performance evaluation of GPT-4o across 18 different pathological findings and anatomical structures. The t...

    2024

  41. [49]

    Accessed November 14,

    ibrahimhamamci/CT-RATE · Datasets at Hugging Face. Accessed November 14,

  42. [50]

    https://huggingface.co/datasets/ibrahimhamamci/CT-RATE

  43. [51]

    December 9, 2024

    YYama0/CT-RATE-JPN · Datasets at Hugging Face. December 9, 2024. Accessed December 10, 2024. https://huggingface.co/datasets/YYama0/CT-RATE-JPN

    2024

  44. [2024]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.17834

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.