ArticleCVIR endovascular2025
Large language models for patient education prior to interventional radiology procedures: a comparative study.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluates four large language models' (LLMs) ability to answer common patient questions preceding transarterial periarticular embolization (TAPE), computed tomography (CT)-guided high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, and bleomycin electrosclerotherapy (BEST). The goal is to evaluate their potential to enhance clinical workflows and patient comprehension, while also assessing associated risks. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-five TAPE, 34 CT-HDR brachytherapy, and 36 BEST related questions were presented to ChatGPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, OpenBioLLM-8b, and BioMistral-7b. The LLM-generated responses were independently assessed by two board-certified radiologists. Accuracy was rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Statistics compared LLM performance across question categories for patient-education suitability.
resultsDeepSeek-V3 attained the highest mean scores for BEST [4.49 (± 0.77)] and CT-HDR [4.24 (± 0.81)] and demonstrated comparable performance to ChatGPT-4o for TAPE-related questions (DeepSeek-V3 [4.20 (± 0.77)] vs. ChatGPT-4o [4.17 (± 0.64)]; p = 1.000). In contrast, OpenBioLLM-8b (BEST 3.51 (± 1.15), CT-HDR 3.32 (± 1.13), TAPE 3.34 (± 1.16)) and BioMistral-7b (BEST 2.92 (± 1.35), CT-HDR 3.03 (± 1.06), TAPE 3.33 (± 1.28)) performed significantly worse than DeepSeek-V3 and ChatGPT-4o across all procedures. Preparation/Planning was the only category without statistically significant differences across all three procedures.
conclusionDeepSeek-V3 and ChatGPT-4o excelled on TAPE, BEST, and CT-HDR brachytherapy questions, indicating potential to enhance patient education in interventional radiology, where complex but minimally invasive procedures often are explained in brief consultations. However, OpenBioLLM-8b and BioMistral-7b exhibited more frequent inaccuracies, suggesting that LLMs cannot replace comprehensive clinical consultations yet. Patient feedback and clinical workflow implementation should validate these findings.
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.