ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
The effect of medical explanations from large language models on diagnostic accuracy in radiology.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human-large language model collaboration in clinical medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- A comparative study of the performance of different large language models in the Chinese National Pharmacist Licensing Examination.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A meta-analysis of the persuasive power of large language models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.