Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39979623›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2025

Large language models for error detection in radiology reports: a comparative analysis between closed-source and privacy-compliant open-source models.

Babak Salam, Claire Stüwe, Sebastian Nowak, Alois M Sprinkart, Maike Theis, Dmitrij Kravchenko, Narine Mesropyan, Tatjana Dell, Christoph Endler, Claus C Pieper and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

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

13 authors.

Babak Salam *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Claire Stüwe *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Sebastian NowakDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Alois M SprinkartDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Maike TheisDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Dmitrij KravchenkoDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Narine MesropyanDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Tatjana DellDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Christoph EndlerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Claus C PieperDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Daniel L KuettingDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Julian A LuetkensDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Alexander IsaakDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany. alexander.isaak@ukbonn.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2016-6166

Funding

BONFOR-Forschungskommission der Medizinischen Fakultät Bonn 2022-2A-04Ernst und Berta Grimmke Stiftung 6/23
6 · The paper itself

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

Diagnostic ErrorsRadiology Information SystemsHumansLarge Language ModelsPrivacyError detectionGenerative pre-trained transformersLarge language modelsOpen sourceRadiology reports

Identifiers

PMID39979623
PMCPMC12226608

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.