ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Comparison of online radiologists and large language model chatbots in responding to common radiology-related questions in Chinese: a cross-sectional comparative analysis.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Fine-tuned multimodal GPT-4o for generating diagnostic impressions in breast magnetic resonance imaging: insights into non-mass enhancement lesions.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Additional avenues for medical counseling are needed to better serve patients. In handling medical counseling, large language model chatbots (LLM-chatbots) have demonstrated near-physician expertise in comprehending enquiries and providing professional advice. However, their performance in addressing patients' common radiology-related concerns has yet to be evaluated. This study thus aimed to investigate the effectiveness and model performance of LLM-chatbots (DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-4o) in radiology-related medical consultation in the Chinese context through both subjective evaluations and objective metrics. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, common radiology-related questions were collected from the HaoDF online platform, one of the largest Chinese public healthcare service platforms. All questions were posed to the LLM-chatbots from February 24 to February 30, 2025. To facilitate comparison between LLM-chatbots and online radiologists, three senior radiologists from different medical centers were recruited as reviewers, and they blindly scored LLM-generated responses using a 5-point Likert scale across the three subjective dimensions: quality, empathy, and potential harm. Objective metrics including textual features (six metrics across three linguistic dimensions: lexical, syntactic, and semantic), response time, and self-improvement capacity were calculated as additional evaluators for the performance of the two LLM-chatbots. Results: A total of 954 reviews were generated for 318 responses to 106 questions. LLM-chatbots achieved superior scores in quality, empathy, and potential harm as compared to the online radiologists (all P values <0.001). Among the LLM-chatbots, DeepSeek-R1 outperformed ChatGPT-4o in terms of quality scores [DeepSeek-R1: mean 4.40, standard deviation (SD) 0.57; ChatGPT-4o: mean 3.73, SD 0.64; P<0.001]. The response times were significantly shorter for DeepSeek-R1 [median 56.00 s; interquartile range (IQR), 47-67 s] and ChatGPT-4o (median 12.17 s; IQR, 10.91-15.85 s) as compared to online radiologists (median 6,487.90 s; IQR, 3,530.50-29,061.70 s), and the LLM-chatbots generated greater textual complexity (as measured by six metrics across three linguistic dimensions: lexical, syntactic, and semantic) (all P values <0.001). Among the two chatbots, ChatGPT-4o generally produced linguistically simpler responses (all P values <0.001), with comparatively shorter response times (median 12.17 s; IQR, 10.91-15.85 s), than did DeepSeek-R1 (median 56.00 s; IQR, 47-67 s) across various topics (P<0.001). Additionally, both LLM-chatbots demonstrated a degree of self-improvement ability. Conclusions: These findings highlight the potential utility of LLM-chatbots in addressing the common radiology-related inquiries initially posed by patients. However, further optimization and validation are required to establish this emerging technology as a productive and effective pathway in medical counseling.
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.