ArticleNeuroradiology2024
Automatic generation of conclusions from neuroradiology MRI reports through natural language processing.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natural language processing and LLMs in liver imaging: a practical review of clinical applications.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Lexomics, or why to extract relevant information from radiology reports through LLMs.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Trends and Trajectories in the Rise of Large Language Models in Radiology: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe conclusion section of a radiology report is crucial for summarizing the primary radiological findings in natural language and essential for communicating results to clinicians. However, creating these summaries is time-consuming, repetitive, and prone to variability and errors among different radiologists. To address these issues, we evaluated a fine-tuned Text-To-Text Transfer Transformer (T5) model for abstractive summarization to automatically generate conclusions for neuroradiology MRI reports in a low-resource language.
methodsWe retrospectively applied our method to a dataset of 232,425 neuroradiology MRI reports in Spanish. We compared various pre-trained T5 models, including multilingual T5 and those newly adapted for Spanish. For precise evaluation, we employed BLEU, METEOR, ROUGE-L, CIDEr, and cosine similarity metrics alongside expert radiologist assessments.
resultsThe findings are promising, with the models specifically fine-tuned for neuroradiology MRI achieving scores of 0.46, 0.28, 0.52, 2.45, and 0.87 in the BLEU-1, METEOR, ROUGE-L, CIDEr, and cosine similarity metrics, respectively. In the radiological experts' evaluation, they found that in 75% of the cases evaluated, the conclusions generated by the system were as good as or even better than the manually generated conclusions.
conclusionThe methods demonstrate the potential and effectiveness of customizing state-of-the-art pre-trained models for neuroradiology, yielding automatic MRI report conclusions that nearly match expert quality. Furthermore, these results underscore the importance of designing and pre-training a dedicated language model for radiology report summarization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38381144What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.