ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Assessing the ability of large language models to simplify lumbar spine imaging reports into patient-facing text: a pilot study of GPT-4.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Benchmarking Multimodal Vision Frontier Models With Lumbar Spine MRIs for Grading Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Global spine journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the ability of large language models (LLMs) to accurately simplify lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients who underwent lumbar decompression and/or fusion surgery in 2022 at one tertiary academic medical center were queried using appropriate CPT codes. We then identified all patients with a preoperative ICD diagnosis of lumbar spondylolisthesis and extracted the latest preoperative spine MRI radiology report text. The GPT-4 API was deployed on deidentified reports with a prompt to produce translations and evaluated for accuracy and readability. An enhanced GPT prompt was constructed using high-scoring reports and evaluated on low-scoring reports.
resultsOf 93 included reports, GPT effectively reduced the average reading level (11.47 versus 8.50, p < 0.001). While most reports had no accuracy issues, 34% of translations omitted at least one clinically relevant piece of information, while 6% produced a clinically significant inaccuracy in the translation. An enhanced prompt model using high scoring reports-maintained reading level while significantly improving omission rate (p < 0.0001). However, even in the enhanced prompt model, GPT made several errors regarding location of stenosis, description of prior spine surgery, and description of other spine pathologies.
conclusionGPT-4 effectively simplifies the reading level of lumbar spine MRI reports. The model tends to omit key information in its translations, which can be mitigated with enhanced prompting. Further validation in the domain of spine radiology needs to be performed to facilitate clinical integration.
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.