Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38627289›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2024

The virtual reference radiologist: comprehensive AI assistance for clinical image reading and interpretation.

Robert Siepmann, Marc Huppertz, Annika Rastkhiz, Matthias Reen, Eric Corban, Christian Schmidt, Stephan Wilke, Philipp Schad, Can Yüksel, Christiane Kuhl and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Impact of Access to Clinical Guidelines on LLM-Based Treatment Recommendations for Chronic Hepatitis B.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Robert SiepmannDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Marc HuppertzDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Annika RastkhizDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Matthias ReenDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Eric CorbanDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Christian SchmidtDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Stephan WilkeDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Philipp SchadDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Can YükselDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Christiane KuhlDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Daniel Truhn *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Sven Nebelung *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany. snebelung@ukaachen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5267-9962

Funding

BMBF 01KD2215A, 031L0312ADeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft TR 1700/7-1Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 101057091
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLarge language models (LLMs) have shown potential in radiology, but their ability to aid radiologists in interpreting imaging studies remains unexplored. We investigated the effects of a state-of-the-art LLM (GPT-4) on the radiologists' diagnostic workflow. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this retrospective study, six radiologists of different experience levels read 40 selected radiographic [n = 10], CT [n = 10], MRI [n = 10], and angiographic [n = 10] studies unassisted (session one) and assisted by GPT-4 (session two). Each imaging study was presented with demographic data, the chief complaint, and associated symptoms, and diagnoses were registered using an online survey tool. The impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on diagnostic accuracy, confidence, user experience, input prompts, and generated responses was assessed. False information was registered. Linear mixed-effect models were used to quantify the factors (fixed: experience, modality, AI assistance; random: radiologist) influencing diagnostic accuracy and confidence.

resultsWhen assessing if the correct diagnosis was among the top-3 differential diagnoses, diagnostic accuracy improved slightly from 181/240 (75.4%, unassisted) to 188/240 (78.3%, AI-assisted). Similar improvements were found when only the top differential diagnosis was considered. AI assistance was used in 77.5% of the readings. Three hundred nine prompts were generated, primarily involving differential diagnoses (59.1%) and imaging features of specific conditions (27.5%). Diagnostic confidence was significantly higher when readings were AI-assisted (p > 0.001). Twenty-three responses (7.4%) were classified as hallucinations, while two (0.6%) were misinterpretations.

conclusionIntegrating GPT-4 in the diagnostic process improved diagnostic accuracy slightly and diagnostic confidence significantly. Potentially harmful hallucinations and misinterpretations call for caution and highlight the need for further safeguarding measures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Using GPT-4 as a virtual assistant when reading images made six radiologists of different experience levels feel more confident and provide more accurate diagnoses; yet, GPT-4 gave factually incorrect and potentially harmful information in 7.4% of its responses.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceRadiologistsClinical CompetenceDiagnostic ImagingFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedRadiologyRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceDiagnostic errorsDiagnostic imagingRadiology

Identifiers

PMID38627289
PMCPMC11399201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.