Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41094535›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2025

The ethics of simplification: balancing patient autonomy, comprehension, and accuracy in AI-generated radiology reports.

Hong-Seon Lee, Seung-Hyun Song, Chaeri Park, Jeongrok Seo, Won Hwa Kim, Jaeil Kim, Sungjun Kim, Kyunghwa Han, Young Han Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Hong-Seon LeeDepartment of Radiology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Seung-Hyun SongDepartment of Radiology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Chaeri ParkDepartment of Radiology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jeongrok SeoBeamWorks Inc, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Won Hwa KimBeamWorks Inc, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Jaeil KimBeamWorks Inc, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Sungjun KimDepartment of Radiology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Kyunghwa HanDepartment of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science and Center for Clinical Imaging Data Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1, Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea.
Young Han LeeInstitute for Innovation in Digital Healthcare, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. sando@yuhs.ac.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are increasingly used to simplify radiology reports and improve patient comprehension. However, excessive simplification may undermine informed consent and autonomy by compromising clinical accuracy. This study investigates the ethical implications of readability thresholds in AI-generated radiology reports, identifying the minimum reading level at which clinical accuracy is preserved.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 500 computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging reports from a tertiary hospital. Each report was transformed into 17 versions (reading grade levels 1-17) using GPT-4 Turbo. Readability metrics and word counts were calculated for each version. Clinical accuracy was evaluated using radiologist assessments and PubMed-BERTScore. We identified the first grade level at which a statistically significant decline in accuracy occurred, determining the lowest level that preserved both accuracy and readability. We further assessed potential clinical consequences in reports simplified to the 7th-grade level.

resultsReadability scores showed strong correlation with prompted reading levels (r = 0.80-0.84). Accuracy remained stable across grades 13-11 but declined significantly below grade 11. At the 7th-grade level, 20% of reports contained inaccuracies with potential to alter patient management, primarily due to omission, incorrect conversion, or inappropriate generalization. The 11th-grade level emerged as the current lower bound for preserving accuracy in LLM-generated radiology reports.

conclusionsOur findings highlight an ethical tension between improving readability and maintaining clinical accuracy. While 7th-grade readability remains an ethical ideal, current AI tools cannot reliably produce accurate reports below the 11th-grade level. Ethical implementation of AI-generated reporting should include layered communication strategies and model transparency to safeguard patient autonomy and comprehension.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceComprehensionPersonal AutonomyRadiologyHumansInformed ConsentMagnetic Resonance ImagingRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedAI-generated radiology reportsClinical accuracyEthical implicationsInformed consentLarge Language ModelsPatient autonomyReadability and comprehension

Identifiers

PMID41094535
PMCPMC12523008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.