ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Intelligent Head and Neck CTA Report Quality Detection with Large Language Models.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to identify common errors in head and neck CTA reports using GPT-4, ERNIE Bot, and SparkDesk, evaluating their potential for supporting quality control in Chinese radiological reports. This study collected 10,000 head and neck CTA imaging reports from Xuanwu Hospital (Dataset 1) and 5000 multi-center reports (Dataset 2). We identified six common types of errors and detected them using three large language models: GPT-4, ERNIE Bot, and SparkDesk. The overall quality of the reports was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. We conducted a Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Friedman test to compare error detection rates and evaluate the models' performance on different error types and overall scores. For Dataset 2, after manual review, we annotated the six error types and provided overall scoring, while also recording the time taken for manual scoring and model detection. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. The intraclass correlation coefficient measured consistency between manual and model scores, and ANOVA compared evaluation times. In Dataset 1, the error detection rates for final reports were significantly lower than those for preliminary reports across all three model types. Friedman's test indicated significant differences in error rates among the three models. In Dataset 2, the detection accuracy of the three LLMs for the six error types was above 95%. GPT-4 had a moderate consistency with manual scores (ICC = 0.517), while ERNIE Bot and SparkDesk showed slightly lower consistency (ICC = 0.431 and 0.456, respectively; P < 0.001). The models evaluated one hundred radiology reports significantly faster than human reviewers. LLMs can differentiate the quality of radiology reports and identify error types, significantly enhancing the efficiency of quality control reviews and providing substantial research and practical value in this field.
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.