Error Detection for PET/CT Radiology Reports: Domain-Specific vs Large Language Models

Errors in radiology reports can adversely affect patient treatment, yet automated report quality assurance remains challenging because errors are often subtle and require domain expertise to detect. Although large language models (LLMs) have recently been proposed for radiology report verification, their ability to detect clinically meaningful errors beyond chest X-ray datasets remains under-explored. To this end, we present the first systematic evaluation of language models for PET/CT report error detection, comparing compact domain-specific models with SOTA open-weight LLMs. We collected 30,633 oncology FDG PET/CT reports from 23 radiologists over 10 years. We trained domain-specific BERT models to detect clinically motivated synthetic reporting errors and evaluated alongside zero-/few-shot Qwen3-32B, Gemma-3-27B and Llama-3.3-70B on a held-out benchmark of 11,500 reports. A 15M-parameter model achieved 94.4% balanced accuracy with a 5.8% false-positive rate, compared with 84.0% for the strongest prompted LLM. Task-specific adaptation of Llama-3.3-70B closed this performance gap (94.4%) but retained substantially greater computational requirements. Our results suggest that domain-specific training matters more than model scale for PET/CT report error detection, supporting compact models as an accurate and computationally efficient approach to automated radiology report quality assurance.

Toward Better Assessment of LLMs' Performance in Clinical Error Detection

Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation. Error-detection benchmarks are typically constructed by injecting errors into notes, such that each erroneous note has a natural counterpart. Aggregate discriminative metrics (e.g., balanced accuracy or F1) do not exploit this structure. We show that this omission is consequential. In particular, evaluating 15 diverse LLMs on 4 standardized clinical error-detection test sets across 3 languages, we find that 13 of 15 models fall below the level of random pairwise discrimination, even while achieving F1 scores that standard practice would read as moderate. We also observe that the underlying bias patterns differ across languages: the same model can default to "no error" on one language and over-flag errors on another. To diagnose where discrimination breaks down, we further introduce a procedure to score the evidence models cite in their outputs. We find that while models consistently locate error-relevant content, they fail to produce the corresponding correct verdict on the clean counterpart. Finally, we show that F1 and pairwise accuracy are driven in opposite directions by the same underlying bias, so that ranking models by F1 may systematically promote the weakest discriminators. For safety-critical clinical NLP applications, we advocate for supplementing aggregate metrics with paired evaluations in benchmark reporting. Code and analysis scripts are available at https://github.com/healthylaife/paired-clinical-eval.