ArticleKorean journal of radiology2025
Artificial Intelligence-Driven Drafting of Chest X-Ray Reports: 2025 Position Statement From the Korean Society of Thoracic Radiology Based on an Expert Survey.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence and the phantom pneumothorax: Clinical reasoning still matters.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Evaluating guideline adherence in LLM studies using LLMs.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Comments on "Artificial Intelligence-Driven Drafting of Chest X-Ray Reports: 2025 Position Statement From the Korean Society of Thoracic Radiology Based on an Expert Survey".Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Response to Comments on "Artificial Intelligence-Driven Drafting of Chest X-Ray Reports: 2025 Position Statement From the Korean Society of Thoracic Radiology Based on an Expert Survey".Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Response to Comments on "Artificial Intelligence-Driven Drafting of Chest X-Ray Reports: 2025 Position Statement From the Korean Society of Thoracic Radiology Based on an Expert Survey".Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Comments on "Artificial Intelligence-Driven Drafting of Chest X-Ray Reports: 2025 Position Statement From the Korean Society of Thoracic Radiology Based on an Expert Survey".Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) systems can be used to draft automated chest X-ray (CXR) reports. Although promising in terms of efficiency and workforce shortages, their accuracy, reliability, and clinical utility remain uncertain. This article presents the Korean Society of Thoracic Radiology (KSTR) position statement on AI-assisted CXR report drafting, derived from a Delphi survey of experts who used the software on a modest case set. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty thoracic radiologists completed a Delphi survey after reviewing 60 CXR cases using an AI-based tool for automated report drafting (KARA-CXR, version 1.0.0.3; KakaoBrain, Seoul, Republic of Korea). Prior to the Delphi survey, the participants individually reviewed 60 CXR cases at their respective workplaces as part of the survey preparation process. The 60 cases were distributed evenly across six clinical settings (health screening, inpatient, emergency department, intensive care unit, respiratory outpatient, and non-respiratory outpatient), with 10 cases in each setting. The participants individually selected CXR cases in which they had worked. The entire selection and review processes were completed within 1 month. Subsequently, two Delphi rounds were conducted. Participants rated 12 key questions (72 items) regarding the clinical applicability of the AI-based tool on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus required ≥70% agreement.
resultsConsensus emerged for 41 of 72 items (56.9%). Respondents adopted a neutral stance on most questions concerning accuracy and clinical integration; they were neither impressed nor disappointed with the tool. A favorable view emerged only for health-screening examinations. Conversely, the stand-alone use of the AI-based tool in routine practice was opposed. Participants stressed the need for further performance optimization before deployment and advocated society-endorsed education and guidelines before adoption.
conclusionThe KSTR supports the use of an AI-based automated CXR report-drafting tool only in health-screening settings with radiologist validation and opposes its standalone use in routine practice, recommending performance optimization and society-endorsed education and guidelines before its adoption.
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.