ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Large language models for error detection in radiology reports: a comparative analysis between closed-source and privacy-compliant open-source models.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- RadCoT: a Radiological Chain-of-Thought framework for enhanced error detection in radiology reports.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- From zero-shot to fine-tuning: optimize large language models for error detection of ultrasound reports.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Reporting Quality of Large Language Model Studies: A Cross-Sectional Audit of High-Ranking Radiology and Medical Imaging Journals.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Error Detection and Correction in Chinese Radiology Reports Using Large Language Models: Real-World Clinical Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Multimodal Large Language Models for Breast Ultrasound Report Auditing: Workflow-Error Detection, False-Positive Burden, and Limits of Key-Image Interpretation.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Reporting efficiency in diagnostic imaging: Can plug-and-play general-purpose large language models outperform conventional speech recognition?European radiology · 2026Article
- Large Language Models Versus Human Readers in CAD-RADS 2.0 Categorization of Coronary CT Angiography Reports.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Use of Large Language Models to Enhance Failure Mode and Effects Analysis: A Case Study.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Simplifying radiology reports with large language models: privacy-compliant open- versus closed-weight models.European radiology · 2026Article
- Reasoning Model-Assisted Second-Reader Quality Control of Chinese-Language Ultrasound Reports: A Retrospective Imaging Informatics Study.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Improving Radiology Report Error Detection Using a Multipass Large Language Model: Framework Development and Validation.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Error Detection in Emergency Radiology Reports Using a Large Language Model: Multistage Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Influence of structured output constraints on GPT-5-Thinking, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and open-weight LLMs for radiology protocol selection.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Agentic artificial intelligence in radiology workflow: from image interpretation to report quality control.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- A review for navigating the trade-offs: evaluating open-source and proprietary large language models for clinical and biomedical information extraction.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Enhancing substance use detection in clinical notes with large language models.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2025Article
- Reply to the Letter to the Editor: Improving generative-AI performance in radiology through test-time compute.European radiology · 2025Article
- Enhancing Substance Use Detection in Clinical Notes with Large Language Models.Research square · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLarge language models (LLMs) like Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) can assist in detecting errors in radiology reports, but privacy concerns limit their clinical applicability. This study compares closed-source and privacy-compliant open-source LLMs for detecting common errors in radiology reports. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 120 radiology reports were compiled (30 each from X-ray, ultrasound, CT, and MRI). Subsequently, 397 errors from five categories (typographical, numerical, findings-impression discrepancies, omission/insertion, interpretation) were inserted into 100 of these reports; 20 reports were left unchanged. Two open-source models (Llama 3-70b, Mixtral 8x22b) and two commercial closed-source (GPT-4, GPT-4o) were tasked with error detection using identical prompts. The Kruskall-Wallis test and paired t-test were used for statistical analysis.
resultsOpen-source LLMs required less processing time per radiology report than closed-source LLMs (6 ± 2 s vs. 13 ± 4 s; p < 0.001). Closed-source LLMs achieved higher error detection rates than open-source LLMs (GPT-4o: 88% [348/397; 95% CI: 86, 92], GPT-4: 83% [328/397; 95% CI: 80, 87], Llama 3-70b: 79% [311/397; 95% CI: 76, 83], Mixtral 8x22b: 73% [288/397; 95% CI: 68, 77]; p < 0.001). Numerical errors (88% [67/76; 95% CI: 82, 93]) were detected significantly more often than typographical errors (75% [65/86; 95% CI: 68, 82]; p = 0.02), discrepancies between findings and impression (73% [73/101; 95% CI: 67, 80]; p < 0.01), and interpretation errors (70% [50/71; 95% CI: 62, 78]; p = 0.001).
conclusionOpen-source LLMs demonstrated effective error detection, albeit with comparatively lower accuracy than commercial closed-source models, and have potential for clinical applications when deployed via privacy-compliant local hosting solutions. KEY POINTS: Question Can privacy-compliant open-source large language models (LLMs) match the error-detection performance of commercial non-privacy-compliant closed-source models in radiology reports? Findings Closed-source LLMs achieved slightly higher accuracy in detecting radiology report errors than open-source models, with Llama 3-70b yielding the best results among the open-source models. Clinical relevance Open-source LLMs offer a privacy-compliant alternative for automated error detection in radiology reports, improving clinical workflow efficiency while ensuring patient data confidentiality. Further refinement could enhance their accuracy, contributing to better diagnosis and patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.