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.

A Unified Benchmark of Deep Learning Models for Multi-task 3D Brain Tumor Segmentation from Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Automatic brain tumor segmentation from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become a fundamental task in computer-assisted diagnosis, treatment planning, and disease monitoring. Although numerous deep learning architectures have recently been proposed, objective comparisons remain challenging because published studies often employ different datasets, preprocessing strategies, training protocols, and evaluation procedures. This work presents a unified experimental benchmark for comparing representative convolutional neural networks (CNNs), Transformer-based models, and recent State Space Model (SSM) architectures under homogeneous experimental conditions. Five state-of-the-art three-dimensional segmentation models, including 3D U-Net, SegResNet, Swin UNETR, SegMamba, and SegMambaV2, are evaluated on two brain tumor segmentation datasets representing distinct clinical scenarios: intracranial meningioma segmentation (BraTS 2023) and post-treatment glioma segmentation (BraTS 2024). All architectures are trained using identical preprocessing, data augmentation, optimization strategies, and evaluation protocols to ensure a fair comparison. Performance is assessed using segmentation accuracy metrics together with computational cost indicators, including inference time and the size of each model. The results provide practical insights into the trade-offs between segmentation accuracy and computational efficiency, highlighting the suitability of different architectural paradigms for challenging three-dimensional brain tumor segmentation tasks.

Continuous surrogates versus threshold Boolean networks for modeling Arabidopsis ISR gene regulation

Gene regulatory network modeling often requires balancing predictive accuracy and mechanistic interpretability. In this work, we compare continuous surrogate models and a discrete mechanistic model on the same \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} induced systemic resistance (ISR) dataset, using both the raw continuous gene-expression measurements and their sign-binarized representation. The study considers eight defense-related genes measured over nine time points and evaluates two continuous predictors, Random Forest (RF) regression and a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), against a threshold Boolean network (TBN). The models are assessed using rolling-origin one-step prediction, recursive multi-step rollout, and interpretability analysis. RF achieved the best average one-step numerical performance in the continuous domain, with an MAE of 1.910 and an RMSE of 2.836, compared with 2.089 and 3.106 for the MLP. In the binary domain, the TBN obtained the best average one-step qualitative performance, with a binary accuracy of 0.550 and a Hamming distance of 3.600, compared with 0.500 and 4.000 for RF, and 0.495 and 4.040 for the MLP. In recursive rollout, the TBN exactly reproduced the observed binarized trajectory, while the MLP also showed near-perfect fidelity, with a trajectory binary accuracy of 0.986, and RF accumulated substantially larger deviation, with a trajectory binary accuracy of 0.708. These results highlight that local numerical accuracy and global qualitative dynamical fidelity are not necessarily aligned, and suggest that continuous surrogates and threshold Boolean networks should be viewed as complementary tools for modeling biological regulation.

Performance and Interpretability of Convolutional, Transformer, and Hybrid Deep Learning Models in Colorectal Histology Classification

Deep learning has become an important tool in computational pathology, enabling automated analysis of histopathological images. While convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have traditionally dominated this field, transformer-based and hybrid architectures have recently demonstrated promising performance. However, comprehensive comparisons of these approaches for colorectal histopathology remain limited. This study evaluated twelve ImageNet-pretrained CNN, transformer, and hybrid architectures using the Kather colorectal histopathology dataset containing 5,000 image tiles from eight tissue classes. All models were trained using a standardized transfer-learning and fine-tuning protocol and assessed using multiple performance metrics, including accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, ROC-AUC, Cohen's kappa, and Matthews correlation coefficient. All evaluated models achieved high classification performance, with accuracies ranging from 93.2% to 97.1%. EVA-02 achieved the highest overall performance (97.1% accuracy, 97.0% F1-score), closely followed by ViT-B/16. Among CNNs, ResNet34 and ConvNeXt-Tiny demonstrated highly competitive performance, achieving accuracies of 96.4% and 96.3%, respectively. Transformer architectures generally produced the strongest results across evaluation metrics, although the performance gap between the best transformer and CNN models was relatively small. Per-class analysis showed consistently strong classification performance across all tissue categories, with Complex Stroma representing the most challenging class. Overall, transformer-based architectures achieved the highest predictive performance, whereas modern CNNs provided a favorable balance between accuracy and model complexity. These findings provide a comprehensive benchmark of major deep learning paradigms for colorectal histopathology classification.

Measurement noise limits the advantage of nonlinear models over linear models in biomedical prediction

On biomedical tabular data, flexible models such as deep networks, gradient-boosted trees, and kernel methods are repeatedly matched or beaten by linear and logistic regression given the same features. The usual reaction is to treat this as a model-side shortfall, to be fixed with more data, a better architecture, or tuning, on the assumption that the nonlinear structure is there and the model has failed to capture it. We argue that these fixes cannot help when the binding limit is the measurement rather than the model, as it frequently is in biomedicine. Additive noise blurs the population-optimal predictor, and because blurring removes a function's fine, rapidly varying detail before its broad shape, it erases nonlinear structure faster than linear structure. A degree-$k$ interaction is attenuated by the $k$-th power of feature reliability, while the linear part is attenuated only once. At the reliabilities typical of biomedical measurement, the nonlinear advantage can vanish even when the underlying biology is strongly nonlinear, and what the noise removes cannot be recovered by a larger cohort or a more flexible model, only by better measurement. The nonlinearity is hidden, not absent, and a tie between linear and flexible models is not by itself a verdict on the biology. These pieces are classical, drawn from measurement-error statistics, psychometrics, and Gaussian analysis, and we assemble them into an exact excess-risk identity. Measurement reliability is one of three conditions, alongside sample size and feature representation, that must align for a flexible model to help, and together they leave only a narrow window that most biomedical tasks fall outside. Across 140 UK Biobank tasks, the gap between flexible and linear models, where it exists, carries the predicted noise signature, and the three conditions can be separated by intervention but not by a benchmark alone.

Trusting Right Predictions for Wrong Reasons: A LIME Based Analysis of Deep Learning Interpretability in Lung Cancer Diagnosis

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality, with approximately 2.5 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths annually, making reliable diagnosis a clinical priority. Although deep learning models have achieved strong performance in lung cancer classification, evaluation has largely focused on predictive accuracy, leaving their decision-making processes insufficiently examined. This study compares three architecturally distinct models: a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), a pretrained ResNet50, and a Vision Transformer (ViT), trained on the IQ-OTH/NCCD lung cancer CT dataset. Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) were applied to investigate model reasoning. In addition to standard performance metrics, a dual-correlation framework was introduced to measure both prediction agreement and explanation agreement across model pairs. All three models achieved strong classification performance, with ResNet50 attaining 98.61% accuracy, CNN 97.91%, and ViT 93.75%, while all achieved ROC-AUC scores of 0.99. Prediction correlations exceeded 0.99 across all model pairs, indicating highly consistent outputs. However, LIME explanation correlations remained below 0.26, revealing substantial differences in the image regions used to reach those predictions. Analysis of misclassified samples further identified a consistent spatial pattern: incorrect predictions were associated with attention outside the lung parenchyma, whereas correct predictions focused primarily within lung regions. These findings demonstrate that prediction agreement is a poor proxy for reasoning consistency, and that interpretability evaluation must be treated as an independent validation criterion alongside predictive performance in clinical AI systems.