ReviewCureus2026
Large Language Models in Radiologist-Patient Communication: A Narrative Review for Clinical Practice.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Large Language Model Translation of BI-RADS Breast Imaging Reports into Arabic: A Blinded Expert Evaluation of Diagnostic Communication Safety.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are used in radiology to simplify reports, translate findings, and support patient-facing communication, yet their clinical value and safety remain uncertain. This narrative review was conducted in accordance with the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) quality criteria and synthesises evidence from 49 studies published between 2020 and 2025, focusing on clinician-mediated use of LLMs across four domains: report simplification, multilingual translation, patient education, and patient attitudes. Across studies, LLMs consistently improved readability by 2-6 grade levels, but only one randomised trial directly assessed patient comprehension. A professional review was required in up to 80% of outputs in controlled settings, compared with <10% in observational studies. Harmful factual errors were uncommon but non-negligible (0-10% depending on task and model). Translation performance was highest for high-resource languages, while semantic drift was more frequent in low-resource languages, necessitating bilingual review. Patients generally accepted AI-assisted communication when clinician oversight was explicit. Current regulatory and professional guidance support supervised, institution-hosted deployment. Evidence supports specific use cases, patient summaries, translation drafts, and educational materials, but does not justify autonomous deployment or direct patient self-use. Key evidence gaps remain in comprehension outcomes, workflow impact, and real-world validation.
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.