Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41669453›Full record

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.

Jiang Ji, Chenguang Li, Yibin Fu, Zihao Zhao, Yiyang Wu, Changhua Liang, Yue Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

7 authors.

Jiang JiDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Henan Medical University, Weihui, China.
Chenguang LiDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Henan Medical University, Weihui, China.
Yibin FuDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Henan Medical University, Weihui, China.
Zihao ZhaoDepartment of Radiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Yiyang WuDepartment of Translational Brain Research, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Munich, Germany.
Changhua LiangDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Henan Medical University, Weihui, China.
Yue WuDepartment of Radiology, Zhengzhou Central Hospital Affiliated to Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligence (AI)ChatGPTDeepSeekLarge language models (LLMs)radiology

Identifiers

PMID41669453
PMCPMC12883469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.