ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Reliability of Gemini 2.5 Pro, ChatGPT 4.1, DeepSeek V3, and Claude Opus 4 in generating standardized CMR protocols.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking Multimodal Large Language Models for Cardiopulmonary Findings on Chest Radiographs: Sex-Stratified Discrimination and Operating Characteristics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Technical architecture for integrating vision-language models with DICOM viewers.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Towards an accessible, centralised, searchable database for AI courses in Europe: the Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology Education (AIMIROE) project.European radiology experimental · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into radiology, offering new possibilities for advanced imaging techniques, including cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). This proof-of-concept study assessed four high-performing LLMs (Gemini 2.5 Pro, ChatGPT 4.1, DeepSeek V3, and Claude Opus 4) on their ability to generate CMR protocols for 140 hypothetical cardiac cases. AI-generated protocols were compared against a reference standard established by a consensus between two experienced cardiovascular radiologists, following the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to quantify the concordance of LLM-generated sequences with the SCMR guidelines. Statistical agreement was measured using Cohen and Fleiss κ statistics. Gemini 2.5 Pro achieved the highest concordance, aligning with the SCMR guidelines in 71.5% of all evaluated scenarios. Overall, LLMs showed moderate agreement with the SCMR protocols, with Gemini 2.5 Pro again performing best (Cohen κ = 0.55). Agreement was substantial for mandatory CMR sequences (Fleiss κ ∈ [0.69, 0.74]) and predominantly fair for optional sequences. The tested LLMs demonstrate a potential to generate efficient and pathology-adapted CMR protocols. Under expert supervision, this capability could streamline the imaging workflow and help extend CMR to primary healthcare centers through protocol automation. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The potential of Gemini 2.5 Pro, ChatGPT 4.1, DeepSeek V3, and Claude Opus 4 to suggest pathology-adapted CMR protocols could improve imaging throughput and help to expand access to advanced cardiac diagnostics in primary healthcare centers. KEY POINTS: The tested large language models show potential for generating CMR protocols. Substantial agreement on mandatory CMR sequences promises more efficient examinations. Automation of CMR protocols could help to improve access to this advanced technique outside major medical institutions.
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.