Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42026140›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026

The effect of medical explanations from large language models on diagnostic accuracy in radiology.

Philipp Spitzer, Daniel Hendriks, Jan Rudolph, Sarah Schlaeger, Jens Ricke, Niklas Kühl, Boj Friedrich Hoppe, Stefan Feuerriegel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

8 authors.

Philipp Spitzer *Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Daniel Hendriks *Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Jan RudolphDepartment of Radiology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sarah SchlaegerDepartment of Radiology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jens RickeDepartment of Radiology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Niklas KühlUniversity of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany.
Boj Friedrich HoppeDepartment of Radiology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Stefan FeuerriegelMunich Center for Machine Learning, Munich, Germany. feuerriegel@lmu.de.

Funding

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung 186932
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by physicians for diagnostic support. A key advantage of LLMs is the ability to generate explanations that can help physicians understand the reasoning behind a diagnosis. However, the best-suited format for LLM-generated explanations remains unclear. In this large-scale study, we examined the effect of different formats for LLM explanations on clinical decision-making. For this, we conducted a randomized experiment with radiologists reviewing patient cases with radiological images (N = 2020 assessments). Participants received either no LLM support (control group) or were supported by one of three LLM-generated explanations: (1) a standard output providing the diagnosis without explanation; (2) a differential diagnosis comparing multiple possible diagnoses; or (3) a chain-of-thought explanation offering a detailed reasoning process for the diagnosis. We find that the format of explanations significantly influences diagnostic accuracy. The chain-of-thought explanations yielded the best performance, improving the diagnostic accuracy by 12.2% compared to the control condition without LLM support (P = 0.001). The chain-of-thought explanations are also superior to the standard output without explanation ( + 7.2%; P = 0.040) and the differential diagnosis format ( + 9.7%; P = 0.004). We further assessed the robustness of these findings across case difficulty and different physician backgrounds, such as general vs. specialized radiologists. Evidently, in the controlled setting of our vignette study, explaining the reasoning for a diagnosis helps physicians to identify and correct potential errors in LLM predictions and thus improve overall decisions. Altogether, the results highlight the importance of explanations in medical LLMs to support the reasoning processes of physicians, so that medical LLMs can improve diagnostic performance and, ultimately, patient outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID42026140
PMCPMC13106719

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.