ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Personalized CT Protocol Recommendation via Large Language Model: Enabling Fully Automated CT Scanning Workflows.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Manual CT protocol selection persists as a time-intensive and error-prone bottleneck in radiology workflows, impeding the realization of fully automated scanning pipelines. To overcome this limitation, we developed a Large Language Model Retrieval-Augmented Generation (LLM-RAG) framework for personalized CT protocol recommendation. This system constructs a protocol knowledge base from historical examination records to deliver institutionally tailored, precision recommendations aligned with clinical preferences. Our system demonstrated compelling performance (min: 88.60% precision, 89.34% recall, 88.08% F1, 96.09% accuracy), with key findings revealing: (1) task-specific parity between Qwen and DeepSeek models at equivalent scales (max Δ = 1.41% at 32B); (2) positive scaling laws where larger models boost accuracy (e.g., DeepSeek 7B → 32B: + 1.55%); and (3) linear GPU memory-cost scaling (7B:25 GB → 32B:95 GB), defining clinical deployment constraints. Error analysis of 225 discordant cases identified three primary patterns: over-recommendation (52.44%), unsuitable recommendation (27.56%), and clinically equivalent choices (20%). Critically, the framework achieves clinically viable accuracy without model retraining requirements-a pivotal advantage enabling significant utility in streamlining scanning operations and accelerating imaging workflow automation.
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.