Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40836020›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Applying large language model for automated quality scoring of radiology requisitions using a standardized criteria.

Raşit Eren Büyüktoka, Murat Surucu, Pelin Berfin Erekli Derinkaya, Zehra Hilal Adibelli, Ali Salbas, Ali Murat Koc, Asli Dilara Buyuktoka, Yalcın Isler, Mehmet Alperen Ugur, Elif Isiklar

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Raşit Eren BüyüktokaDepartment of Radiology, Izmir Foça State Hospital, Izmir, Türkiye. rasiterenbuyuktoka@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6989-6613
Murat SurucuBucak Computer and Informatics Faculty, Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9889-9952
Pelin Berfin Erekli DerinkayaDepartment of Radiology, Izmir City Hospital, Izmir, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5314-2293
Zehra Hilal AdibelliDepartment of Radiology, Izmir City Hospital & Health Sciences University, Izmir, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9265-8114
Ali SalbasDepartment of Radiology, Izmir Ataturk Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6157-6367
Ali Murat KocDepartment of Radiology, Izmir Katip Celebi University & Izmir Ataturk Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6824-4990
Asli Dilara BuyuktokaDepartment of Radiology, Izmir City Hospital, Izmir, Türkiye.
Yalcın IslerDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Antalya, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2150-4756
Mehmet Alperen UgurDepartment of General Surgery, Izmir City Hospital, Izmir, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4582-804X
Elif IsiklarDepartment of Internal Medicine, Izmir City Hospital, Izmir, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-9269-6070

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo create and test a locally adapted large language model (LLM) for automated scoring of radiology requisitions based on the reason for exam imaging reporting and data system (RI-RADS), and to evaluate its performance based on reference standards. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective, double-center study included 131,683 radiology requisitions from two institutions. A bidirectional encoder representation from a transformer (BERT)-based model was trained using 101,563 requisitions from Center 1 (including 1500 synthetic examples) and externally tested on 18,887 requisitions from Center 2. The model's performance for two different classification strategies was evaluated by the reference standard created by three different radiologists. Model performance was assessed using Cohen's Kappa, accuracy, F1-score, sensitivity, and specificity with 95% confidence intervals.

resultsA total of 18,887 requisitions were evaluated for the external test set. External testing yielded a performance with an F1-score of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.912-0.943); κ = 0.88 (95% CI: 0.871-0.884). Performance was highest in common categories RI-RADS D and X (F1 ≥ 0.96) and lowest for rare categories RI-RADS A and B (F1 ≤ 0.49). When grouped into three categories (adequate, inadequate, and unacceptable), overall model performance improved [F1-score = 0.97; (95% CI: 0.96-0.97)].

conclusionThe locally adapted BERT-based model demonstrated high performance and almost perfect agreement with radiologists in automated RI-RADS scoring, showing promise for integration into radiology workflows to improve requisition completeness and communication. KEY POINTS: Question Can an LLM accurately and automatically score radiology requisitions based on standardized criteria to address the challenges of incomplete information in radiological practice? Findings A locally adapted BERT-based model demonstrated high performance (F1-score 0.93) and almost perfect agreement with radiologists in automated RI-RADS scoring across a large, multi-institutional dataset. Clinical relevance LLMs offer a scalable solution for automated scoring of radiology requisitions, with the potential to improve workflow in radiology. Further improvement and integration into clinical practice could enhance communication, contributing to better diagnoses and patient care.

Indexed as

RadiologyRadiology Information SystemsHumansLarge Language ModelsReference StandardsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityElectronic health recordsLarge language modelsNatural language processingRadiologyWorkflow

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.