Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42690524›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026

Less Is More: Radiologists Prefer Brief Narratives in LLM-Generated Clinical History Summaries.

Shawn Lyo, Satvik Tripathi, Ali Tejani, David Vu, Siddhant Dogra, Hamza Alizai, Tessa Cook

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Shawn LyoDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. shawn.lyo@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5999-6194
Satvik TripathiDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6214-1464
Ali TejaniDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6862-5299
David VuDepartment of Radiology, Scripps Clinical Medical Group, San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-1757-1027
Siddhant DograDepartment of Radiology, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2386-7849
Hamza AlizaiDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6498-1774
Tessa CookDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6007-7267

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical histories are essential for accurate radiologic interpretation but are often lengthy and time-consuming to review amid increasing radiologist workloads. Large language models (LLMs) offer a potential solution by generating concise, clinically focused summaries from existing documentation; however, the optimal presentation format for radiologists remains unclear. This retrospective reader study evaluated the readability, efficiency, and radiologist preference for a two-stage LLM-based summarization pipeline designed to identify the optimal summary format for radiologic use. Ninety imaging studies across multiple modalities and care settings were processed to generate structured timeline summaries (stage 1) and brief narrative summaries (stage 2). Text length was reduced by approximately 86.8% and 95.2% for stage 1 and stage 2, respectively. Four radiologists independently rated representative subsets of cases for clarity, relevance, usefulness, and comprehensiveness and indicated their order of preference. Stage 2 summaries were preferred in 89% of ratings and were rated significantly higher than stage 1 for perceived clarity, relevance, and usefulness (p < 0.0001), with equivalent comprehensiveness. Longer source documents and longer stage 1 summaries were associated with lower ratings for the detailed timeline format, whereas no such associations were observed for the brief narrative summaries. Manual review identified 25 total hallucinations across 90 cases, of which one was considered capable of altering image interpretation in a case with borderline radiographic features. These findings demonstrate that summary format, and particularly brevity, is critical for optimizing readability and radiologist preference. Automated summarization holds promise to reduce cognitive load and improve information accessibility in radiology practice.

Indexed as

Automated text summarizationClinical history summariesLarge language modelsRadiology summarizationRadiology workflow

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.