Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41991937›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

GPT-4o for Automated Determination of Follow-up Examinations Based on Radiology Reports from Clinical Routine.

Kenan Kaya, Lukas Müller, Thorsten Persigehl, David Zopfs, Christian Nelles, Thomas Dratsch, Andra-Iza Iuga, Jan Paul Janssen, Thomas Schömig, Jonathan Kottlors and 6 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

16 authors.

Kenan KayaInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Lukas MüllerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
Thorsten PersigehlInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
David ZopfsInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Christian NellesInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Thomas DratschInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Andra-Iza IugaInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jan Paul JanssenInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Thomas SchömigInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jonathan KottlorsInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Carsten GietzenInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
David MaintzInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Lenhard PennigInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Tobias JorgDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
Nedim BesteInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Robert TerzisInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. robert.terzis@uk-koeln.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Follow-Up StudiesGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansLarge Language ModelsMagnetic Resonance ImagingRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedArtificial intelligenceComputed tomographyLarge language modelsMagnetic resonance imagingOncologic imaging

Identifiers

PMID41991937
PMCPMC13087124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.