ArticleNeuroradiology2026
Large language models in neuroradiology: an international survey of awareness, applications, and concerns.
Article in Neuroradiology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in medicine and research, but neuroradiologists' awareness, perceived utility, and concerns about integrity and disclosure remain incompletely characterized. This survey aimed to assess radiologists' awareness and perceptions of LLMs in clinical and research domains. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn anonymous, voluntary SurveyMonkey survey was distributed internationally (October 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025) via neuroradiology society newsletters/membership channels and social media. Categorical variables were summarized as counts and percentages; Likert items were summarized using weighted means and response distributions. Item-level complete-case denominators were reported. Prespecified subgroup analyses used chi-square/Fisher exact tests (categorical) and nonparametric tests (ordinal), with Holm multiplicity control within prespecified multi-item question blocks and within each subgroup factor.
resultsA total of 265 respondents started the survey; after exclusions, 209 were included in the analytic sample, of whom 64.6% were male. Awareness of LLMs was high (ChatGPT: 83.3%), but knowledge gaps persisted (14.8% unfamiliar with all listed models; 16.7% misclassified DALL·E as an LLM). Respondents most frequently endorsed bounded, workflow-adjacent clinical applications, including guideline-based recommendations (75.6%) and protocol selection (60.8%), with lower endorsement for image interpretation (22.0%). Concerns were common regarding plagiarism/data fabrication (82.1%), inaccurate or biased outputs (75.8%), and accountability (72.1%), alongside support for AI-detection tools (77.0%) and documentation of LLM use aligned with an example journal policy (73.1%).
conclusionSurvey respondents reported cautious optimism toward LLM integration, favoring workflow-adjacent applications while emphasizing disclosure, oversight, and targeted education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42700224What 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.