Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39160366›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025

From Revisions to Insights: Converting Radiology Report Revisions into Actionable Educational Feedback Using Generative AI Models.

Shawn Lyo, Suyash Mohan, Alvand Hassankhani, Abass Noor, Farouk Dako, Tessa Cook

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

6 authors.

Shawn LyoDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. shawn.kt.lyo@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5999-6194
Suyash MohanDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4025-115X
Alvand HassankhaniDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1292-5265
Abass NoorDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3969-6351
Farouk DakoDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4765-9358
Tessa CookDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6007-7267

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Expert feedback on trainees' preliminary reports is crucial for radiologic training, but real-time feedback can be challenging due to non-contemporaneous, remote reading and increasing imaging volumes. Trainee report revisions contain valuable educational feedback, but synthesizing data from raw revisions is challenging. Generative AI models can potentially analyze these revisions and provide structured, actionable feedback. This study used the OpenAI GPT-4 Turbo API to analyze paired synthesized and open-source analogs of preliminary and finalized reports, identify discrepancies, categorize their severity and type, and suggest review topics. Expert radiologists reviewed the output by grading discrepancies, evaluating the severity and category accuracy, and suggested review topic relevance. The reproducibility of discrepancy detection and maximal discrepancy severity was also examined. The model exhibited high sensitivity, detecting significantly more discrepancies than radiologists (W = 19.0, p < 0.001) with a strong positive correlation (r = 0.778, p < 0.001). Interrater reliability for severity and type were fair (Fleiss' kappa = 0.346 and 0.340, respectively; weighted kappa = 0.622 for severity). The LLM achieved a weighted F1 score of 0.66 for severity and 0.64 for type. Generated teaching points were considered relevant in ~ 85% of cases, and relevance correlated with the maximal discrepancy severity (Spearman ρ = 0.76, p < 0.001). The reproducibility was moderate to good (ICC (2,1) = 0.690) for the number of discrepancies and substantial for maximal discrepancy severity (Fleiss' kappa = 0.718; weighted kappa = 0.94). Generative AI models can effectively identify discrepancies in report revisions and generate relevant educational feedback, offering promise for enhancing radiology training.

Indexed as

Formative FeedbackRadiologyHumansReproducibility of ResultsEducationGenerative artificial intelligenceLarge language modelsPrecision radiology educationRadiology trainingReport revisions

Identifiers

PMID39160366
PMCPMC11950553

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.