ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026
The detectability paradox: bilingual medical report generation with open-weight models and the limits of human oversight.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness, Safety, and Workflow Burden of Large Language Model-Based Medical Report Generation: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe automation of medical report generation using large language models (LLMs) could significantly reduce physicians' documentation burden while enhancing healthcare efficiency. However, the misuse of generative artificial intelligence in medical reporting can lead to important safety risks for patients. We addressed 2 questions: (1) What is the quality of medical reports generated by LLMs in English and French? and (2) Can we distinguish between human-written and LLM-generated medical reports? MATERIALS AND
methodsWe evaluated the quality of reports generated by several multilingual, open-weight LLMs using text similarity metrics on 4212 medical reports in English and French across multiple specialties. A bilingual expert panel of certified physicians (n = 4) and medical residents (n = 5) scored accuracy, fluency, and completeness of generated reports using a 1-5 Likert scale. Experts also completed a Turing-like test, blindly identifying reports as human or machine-generated.
resultsPhi-4 achieved the best overall performance (ROUGE-1: 0.70, BERTScore: 0.83). Expert evaluation confirmed high-quality reports in both languages (overall 4.6/5.0). Medical experts performed better than chance but struggled to differentiate human versus machine reports (accuracy: 0.60). Automatic classifiers showed strong performance (accuracy: 0.98). DISCUSSION: The high quality of LLM-generated reports supports their potential to enhance healthcare efficiency in multilingual settings. However, the discrepancy between human detection difficulty and automated detection success reveals inherent limitations in relying solely on human oversight for quality assurance and misuse prevention.
conclusionsDeployment of LLMs for medical reporting requires combining automated detection tools with human expertise to ensure patient safety. Dataset and code: https://github.com/ds4dh/medical_report_generation.
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.