Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Automatic Extraction of Structured Information from Brain MRI Reports Using an Open-Weight Large Language Model

Summary

A study evaluated LLaMA 3.1 for extracting structured data from Dutch brain MRI reports. The model showed high performance on categorical variables like visual rating scores but lower performance on numerical variables. Few-shot prompting improved numerical extraction accuracy significantly.

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Kaouther Mouheb, Amos Pomp, Antoine Manenti, Romy de Haan, Farog Faghir, Joy Martens, Harro Seelaar, Francesco Mattace-Raso, Meike W. Vernooij, Frank J. Wolters, Stefan Klein, Esther E. Bron
Automatic Extraction of Structured Information from Brain MRI Reports Using an Open-Weight Large Language Model
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[2606.07721] Automatic Extraction of Structured Information from Brain MRI Reports Using an Open-Weight Large Language Model

[Submitted on 5 Jun 2026]

Title:Automatic Extraction of Structured Information from Brain MRI Reports Using an Open-Weight Large Language Model

View a PDF of the paper titled Automatic Extraction of Structured Information from Brain MRI Reports Using an Open-Weight Large Language Model, by Kaouther Mouheb and 11 other authors

View PDF

Abstract:Objectives: Automatic data extraction from free-text radiology reports enables large-scale research, but few studies assessed the performance of large language models (LLMs) on Dutch neuroradiology reports. Methods: We analyzed 947 brain MRI reports from a tertiary memory clinic (2016-2021), authored by consultant neuroradiologists. Trained medical students annotated thirty variables; 100 reports were double-annotated to assess inter-rater reliability. We evaluated the performance of the open-weight LLM LLaMA 3.1 using different languages (Dutch vs. English translation) and few-shot prompting with different example selection strategies. Performance was evaluated using balanced accuracy for categorical variables, accuracy and mean absolute error for counts, and text similarity for free-text. Metrics were computed across 10 random splits of the 947 reports. Results: LLaMA 3.1 demonstrated high zero-shot performance for visual rating scores (mean [95%-CI]): Medial Temporal Atrophy: 90% [77-100%] on the left and 96% [94-99%] on the right, Global Cortical Atrophy: 87% [83-91%], and Fazekas: 94% [93-96%]. Microbleed mentions were detected with 93% accuracy [92-95%] and infarct mentions with 82% [80-84%]. Text similarity for lesion location reached 0.95 [0.95-0.96]. Performance was lower for numerical variables: 80% [78-82%] for the number of microbleeds and 66% [63-68%] for infarcts. English translation yielded comparable results. Few-shot prompting improved performance for numerical variables, achieving 92% [90-93%] for microbleeds and 81% [77-85%] for infarcts using structural similarity-based selection. Conclusion: LLaMA 3.1 shows strong potential for extracting data from Dutch neuroradiology reports. Few-shot prompting enhances performance for numerical variables, whereas challenges remain for location-specific variables.

Comments: Submitted to European Radiology

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Cite as: arXiv:2606.07721 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2606.07721v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.07721

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Kaouther Mouheb [view email] [v1] Fri, 5 Jun 2026 15:57:35 UTC (6,056 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Automatic Extraction of Structured Information from Brain MRI Reports Using an Open-Weight Large Language Model, by Kaouther Mouheb and 11 other authors

View PDF

view license

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-06

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • LLaMA 3.1 achieved 87%-96% zero-shot accuracy on visual rating scores (MTA, GCA, Fazekas).
  • Microbleed and infarct detection accuracies were 93% and 82%, but numerical counts were lower.
  • Few-shot prompting boosted microbleed count accuracy from 80% to 92% and infarct count from 66% to 81%.
  • English translation yielded comparable results, but location-specific variables remain challenging.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.