Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38851825›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Patient-centered radiology reports with generative artificial intelligence: adding value to radiology reporting.

Jiwoo Park, Kangrok Oh, Kyunghwa Han, Young Han Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Jiwoo ParkDepartment of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, and Center for Clinical Imaging Data Science (CCIDS), Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-Ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03722, South Korea.
Kangrok OhDepartment of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, and Center for Clinical Imaging Data Science (CCIDS), Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-Ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03722, South Korea.
Kyunghwa Han *Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, and Center for Clinical Imaging Data Science (CCIDS), Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-Ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03722, South Korea. khhan@yuhs.ac.
Young Han Lee *Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, and Center for Clinical Imaging Data Science (CCIDS), Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-Ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03722, South Korea. sando@yuhs.ac.

Funding

National Research Foundation of Korea NRF-2022R1F1A1071702
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purposes were to assess the efficacy of AI-generated radiology reports in terms of report summary, patient-friendliness, and recommendations and to evaluate the consistent performance of report quality and accuracy, contributing to the advancement of radiology workflow. Total 685 spine MRI reports were retrieved from our hospital database. AI-generated radiology reports were generated in three formats: (1) summary reports, (2) patient-friendly reports, and (3) recommendations. The occurrence of artificial hallucinations was evaluated in the AI-generated reports. Two radiologists conducted qualitative and quantitative assessments considering the original report as a standard reference. Two non-physician raters assessed their understanding of the content of original and patient-friendly reports using a 5-point Likert scale. The scoring of the AI-generated radiology reports were overall high average scores across all three formats. The average comprehension score for the original report was 2.71 ± 0.73, while the score for the patient-friendly reports significantly increased to 4.69 ± 0.48 (p < 0.001). There were 1.12% artificial hallucinations and 7.40% potentially harmful translations. In conclusion, the potential benefits of using generative AI assistants to generate these reports include improved report quality, greater efficiency in radiology workflow for producing summaries, patient-centered reports, and recommendations, and a move toward patient-centered radiology.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePatient-Centered CareAdultAgedFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRadiologyWorkflowArtificial hallucinationArtificial intelligenceLarge language modelPatient-centered radiologyRadiologic report

Identifiers

PMID38851825
PMCPMC11162416

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.