ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Simplifying radiology reports with large language models: privacy-compliant open- versus closed-weight models.
Article in European radiology, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLarge language models (LLMs) like generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) can simplify radiology reports for medical laypersons, but privacy concerns limit their clinical applicability. This study compares closed-weight and in-hospital deployed privacy-compliant open-weight LLMs in generating patient-friendly radiology reports. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 60 radiology reports containing indication and impression sections (15 each from X-ray, ultrasound, CT, and MRI) were translated into lay-friendly versions using different LLMs: one commercial closed-weight model (GPT-4o) and two in-hospital deployed open-weight models (Llama-3-70b, Mixtral-8x22B). All reports were evaluated for readability (Flesch reading ease, reading time, word and sentence count). 21 medical laypeople assessed understandability using a 5-point Likert scale. Linear mixed-effects models and H-Kruskal-Wallis test were used for statistical analysis.
resultsLLM-generated reports demonstrated significantly improved readability, achieving higher Flesch reading ease scores (GPT-4o: 46 ± 7, Llama-3-70b: 44 ± 6, Mixtral-8x22B: 44 ± 6, original: 17 ± 13; p < 0.001). All three LLM reports yielded markedly higher layperson-understandability ratings than the original reports (GPT-4o: 4.4 ± 0.1; Llama-3-70B: 4.3 ± 0.1; Mixtral-8x22B: 4.1 ± 0.1 vs. 1.5 ± 0.1; p < 0.001 for each), with no significant difference between GPT-4o and Llama-3-70B (p = 0.136). Mixtral-8x22B and Llama-3-70B produced more errors with potential for patient harm than GPT-4o (p = 0.005 and p = 0.025, respectively). Imaging modality did not influence understandability (all p > 0.05).
conclusionLLMs substantially improved layperson understanding of radiology reports. Open-weight, on-premises LLMs like Llama-3-70B show strong potential for real-world clinical use, though human oversight is still required. KEY POINTS: Question Can locally deployed open-weight large language models (LLMs) improve the readability and understandability of radiology reports for medical laypersons at a level comparable to closed-weight models? Findings LLMs significantly improved quantitative readability scores and qualitative ratings of layperson understandability; Llama-3-70B and GPT-4o showed comparable performance, and although the open-source models exhibited a higher error rate, they still performed well overall. Clinical relevance Open-weight LLMs provide a privacy-compliant way to generate a template for patient-friendly radiology reports suitable for real-world clinical use.
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.