Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40055233›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2025

Human-AI collaboration in large language model-assisted brain MRI differential diagnosis: a usability study.

Su Hwan Kim, Jonas Wihl, Severin Schramm, Cornelius Berberich, Enrike Rosenkranz, Lena Schmitzer, Kerem Serguen, Christopher Klenk, Nicolas Lenhart, Claus Zimmer and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Agreement of Multimodal Large Language Models and Novice Readers With Expert-Based Radiographic Scoring of Presumptive Septic Carpal Arthritis in Calves.Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. 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.

Su Hwan KimDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany. suhwan.kim@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5383-2041
Jonas WihlDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-0932-7805
Severin SchrammDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Cornelius BerberichDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Enrike RosenkranzDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Lena SchmitzerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Kerem SerguenDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Christopher KlenkDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Nicolas LenhartDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Claus ZimmerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Benedikt WiestlerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Dennis M HedderichDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study investigated the impact of human-large language model (LLM) collaboration on the accuracy and efficiency of brain MRI differential diagnosis. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this retrospective study, forty brain MRI cases with a challenging but definitive diagnosis were randomized into two groups of twenty cases each. Six radiology residents with an average experience of 6.3 months in reading brain MRI exams evaluated one set of cases supported by conventional internet search (Conventional) and the other set utilizing an LLM-based search engine and hybrid chatbot. A cross-over design ensured that each case was examined with both workflows in equal frequency. For each case, readers were instructed to determine the three most likely differential diagnoses. LLM responses were analyzed by a panel of radiologists. Benefits and challenges in human-LLM interaction were derived from observations and participant feedback.

resultsLLM-assisted brain MRI differential diagnosis yielded superior accuracy (70/114; 61.4% (LLM-assisted) vs 53/114; 46.5% (conventional) correct diagnoses, p = 0.033, chi-square test). No difference in interpretation time or level of confidence was observed. An analysis of LLM responses revealed that correct LLM suggestions translated into correct reader responses in 82.1% of cases (60/73). Inaccurate case descriptions by readers (9.2% of cases), LLM hallucinations (11.5% of cases), and insufficient contextualization of LLM responses were identified as challenges related to human-LLM interaction.

conclusionHuman-LLM collaboration has the potential to improve brain MRI differential diagnosis. Yet, several challenges must be addressed to ensure effective adoption and user acceptance. KEY POINTS: Question While large language models (LLM) have the potential to support radiological differential diagnosis, the role of human-LLM collaboration in this context remains underexplored. Findings LLM-assisted brain MRI differential diagnosis yielded superior accuracy over conventional internet search. Inaccurate case descriptions, LLM hallucinations, and insufficient contextualization were identified as potential challenges. Clinical relevance Our results highlight the potential of an LLM-assisted workflow to increase diagnostic accuracy but underline the necessity to study collaborative efforts between humans and LLMs over LLMs in isolation.

Indexed as

BrainBrain DiseasesImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedLanguageMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdultDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansLarge Language ModelsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceBrainDifferential diagnosisLarge language modelsMagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID40055233
PMCPMC12350562

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.