ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Reasoning Model-Assisted Second-Reader Quality Control of Chinese-Language Ultrasound Reports: A Retrospective Imaging Informatics Study.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the reasoning model DeepSeek-R1 can function as a second-reader quality control (QC) tool for Chinese-language ultrasound reports. In this retrospective diagnostic-accuracy study with a parallel blinded review design, 500 deidentified finalized ultrasound reports were randomly sampled from 9711 eligible reports finalized in 2024 at a tertiary cancer center. DeepSeek-R1 and physician reviewer groups independently evaluated the same reports, and none of the review conditions had access to the outputs of the others or to the consensus reference standard. DeepSeek-R1 achieved 69.1% sensitivity and 98.1% specificity. DeepSeek-R1 showed numerically higher sensitivity than senior physicians (69.1% vs 47.1%), though this difference did not reach significance after Bonferroni correction (adjusted p = 0.147); specificity was identical at 98.1% for both. The model performed best for findings-impression discordance (36/42) and more modestly for completeness/template/indicator violations (7/21). In a post hoc exploratory OR-rule simulation, the combined workflow yielded 95.6% sensitivity (95% CI 87.8-98.5) and 96.3% specificity (95% CI 94.1-97.7). This retrospective single-center study provides workflow-level feasibility evidence that a reasoning model can serve as a high-specificity second-reader control for finalized ultrasound report text, with human review retained for local rules, exceptions, and final sign-off.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42371279What 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.