ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
RadCoT: a Radiological Chain-of-Thought framework for enhanced error detection in radiology reports.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundErrors in radiology reports are a major patient-safety concern and are difficult to detect with manual quality assurance (QA). Large language models (LLMs) can assist, but generic prompting does not reflect radiologists' structured, section-based workflows.
objectiveTo develop and evaluate RadCoT (Radiological Chain-of-Thought), a domain-specific prompting framework aligning LLM reasoning with radiological review workflows, and to assess whether it enables open-source models to approach commercial benchmarks for error detection. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, 1,170 clinician-validated errors were extracted from a departmental QA repository (January 2021-December 2024), corresponding to 900 error-containing reports. An additional 300 error-free reports served as controls, yielding 1,200 reports balanced across radiography, ultrasound, CT, and MRI. Errors were categorized into five types by experienced radiologists. Seven LLMs were evaluated using standard prompting and the six-step RadCoT framework. Micro-averaged precision, recall, and F1 were computed at the error-instance level. Error type, modality-specific performance, and inference time were analyzed.
resultsRadCoT significantly improved the mean micro-averaged F1 across all models from 0.77 ± 0.06 (standard) to 0.85 ± 0.06 (RadCoT; p = 0.003). GPT-4o with RadCoT achieved the highest F1 (0.93). Llama-3.3-70B with RadCoT (F1 = 0.89) narrowed the gap with GPT-4o under standard prompting (F1 = 0.88; paired t-test, Holm-adjusted p = 0.28). Interpretation errors showed the largest gain, with F1 improving from 0.57 to 0.75.
conclusionRadCoT consistently enhances LLM-based error detection, particularly for complex logic and consistency errors, closing the gap between open-source and commercial models and offering a pathway for privacy-preserving, on-premises QA. KEY POINTS: Question Manual review misses radiology report errors and remains difficult to scale. Findings Structured prompting improves detection of interpretation and section-consistency errors across seven models. Relevance statement Open-source models approach commercial performance for privacy-preserving on-premises radiology quality assurance.
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.