ArticleScientific reports2026
Improving non-expert performance in musculoskeletal MRI protocoling through a large language model.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MRI protocoling, the process of selecting appropriate sequences, is especially complex in musculoskeletal (MSK) cases. This study evaluates whether a large language model (LLM) can effectively assist non-experts in MRI protocoling. We collected two retrospective datasets of musculoskeletal (MSK) MRI orders: (1) a prompt-development dataset (Jan–Dec 2023; 538 cases) and (2) a testing dataset (Jan–Jun 2024; 107 cases). A prompt was refined on GPT-4o via the web-based ChatGPT interface to use patient information and complete an MRI protocol worksheet. For the testing dataset, 6 non-experts (three radiology residents [RD] and three radiographers [RG]) completed the worksheet with and without LLM-assistance. All worksheets were scored using a clinical pass system, categorizing responses as “excellent (4 points),” “acceptable (3 points),” “insufficient (2 points),” or “failure (1 point)” based on potential outcomes. We compared clinical pass scores between LLM-assisted and human-only worksheets using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and a mixed linear model. Fleiss’ kappa across five iterations was measured for stochasticity. LLM-assisted worksheets had higher average clinical pass scores than human-only worksheets for both RD (3.42 vs. 3.18, p < 0.001) and RG (3.06 vs. 2.9, p < 0.001). LLM-assistance decreased the proportion of “insufficient” and “failure” cases, potentially decreasing MRI re-checks, with an average reduction of 12.2% (13 out of 107) for RD and 8% (8.7 out of 107) for RG. This improvement was consistent across professions (p = 0.43). LLM outputs showed strong reliability across five iterations (κ = 0.66). LLM-assistance improves the performance of non-experts in MSK MRI protocoling and has the potential to reduce repeat scans.
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.