ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Radiology report quality improvement through structured provider feedback: a data-driven initiative.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate EHR-embedded provider feedback workflow for identifying probable concerns in radiology reports and to assess large language model (LLM)-assisted classification of free text comments.
methodsWe collected reports over 11 months (December 2024-October 2025) in this single-centered quality improvement initiative. Link was embedded in EHR (Epic), which directed providers to a voluntary REDCap form. Form captured satisfaction, report adequacy, follow-up requests, and free-text comments. Analysis included free text issue categorizations with Llama 3.3, for five pre-defined non-mutually exclusive categories, and sentiment analysis. Agreement with two radiologists was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Descriptive statistics were reported.
resultsOf 270 responses, 267 were included in the final analysis. Corresponded to 0.026% of 1,010, 219 final reports generated. Overall, 52.8% (141/267) of responses were rated ≥ 4 stars, 44.6% (119/267) indicated that the reports "somewhat" or "did not" address the clinical question, and 28.1% requested a follow-up in this voluntary cohort. Free-text comments were provided in 65.9% (176/267) of responses. 162 comments had a classifiable concern, of 176 free-text comments. The most frequent issue categories were clinical clarity and completeness (91.4%, 148/162), followed by actionability and recommendations (30.9%, 50/162). Kappa agreement showed moderate to substantial agreement between reviewers and LLM (0.607-0.734).
conclusionStructured provider feedback can complement traditional peer review by capturing deficiencies that may go unnoticed by radiologists to radiologists' review alone. Human - LLM agreement was moderate to substantial, warranting further evaluation for scalable model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42377540What 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.