ArticleScientific reports2026
GPT-4o for Automated Determination of Follow-up Examinations Based on Radiology Reports from Clinical Routine.
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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Follow-up imaging recommendations vary across radiologists despite established guidelines. We evaluated whether a large language model (GPT-4o) can standardize follow-up timing and modality selection from routine radiology reports. In this retrospective, two-center study, 100 CT/MRI cases (25 each: head/neck, liver, lung, pancreas) were randomly sampled. GPT-4o and two human readers (R1, resident; R2, board-certified) generated follow-up recommendations from report text. Expert consensus, blinded to rater, assessed completeness, appropriateness of imaging modality, timing accuracy, and global follow up quality on a 5-point scale, with 5 being the highest score. Median global quality was 4 (2–5) for GPT-4o, 4 (1–5) for R1, and 4 (1–5) for R2; GPT-4o exceeded R1 (p < 0.01) and did not differ from 2 (p = 0.06). Relative treatment effect showed a reader effect (GPT4o 0.56 vs. R1 0.43 vs. R2 0.51; p < 0.01) and no center effect (0.50 vs. 0.50; p = 0.91). Correctness of follow-up timing was 96% (96/100) for GPT-4o, 75% (75/100) for R1, and 90% (90/100) for R2 (p < 0.001 for GPT-4o vs. R1). Completeness of follow-up was 92% (92/100) for GPT-4o, 91% (91/100) for R1, and 80% (80/100) for R2 (p = 0.014 for GPT-4o vs. Reader 2). No significant differences were observed regarding appropriateness of imaging modality. GPT-4o generated follow-up recommendations with overall quality comparable to an experienced radiologist and superior to a trainee, with high completeness and generally appropriate follow up timing and modality, supporting its role as decision support for standardized, guideline-aligned follow-up.
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.