ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2026
Multidisciplinary attitudes towards LLM-structured oncologic CT reports: a prospective fixed-sequence questionnaire study.
Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLarge language models (LLMs) can automate the conversion of radiologic free text into structured reports, but multidisciplinary reader preferences for the resulting output remain insufficiently studied. This prospective, two-phase, fixed-sequence within-participant study evaluated reader assessments of LLM-structured versus conventional free-text oncologic CT reports. MATERIAL &
methodsA paired convenience sample of radiologists, radiology technologists, oncologists, and medical students was recruited between May and November 2025. In Phase 1, participants rated 5 free-text oncologic CT reports for readability and comprehension (3 items), oncologic information quality (5 items), and clinical utility (4 items) on a 9-point Likert scale. After a washout of at least 4 weeks, participants rated the LLM-structured version generated by Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct.
resultsSixty-six paired participants (24 medical students, 22 radiologists, 12 radiology technologists, 8 oncologists) were included (mean [standard deviation] age, 30.5 [7.6] years; 37 [56.1%] female). Structured reports showed significantly higher odds of agreement for 11 of 12 items (odds ratio [OR] range, 1.70-4.81), with strongest effects for clinical utility (OR, 4.81; 95% CI, 3.24-7.15), information findability (OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 3.12-5.96), recommendation clarity (OR, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.95-5.83), and patient communication suitability (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 2.59-4.60). Radiology technologists showed significantly higher ratings for all 12 items, radiologists for 6, students for 7, and oncologists for none.
conclusionIn this single-center paired sample, LLM-structured oncologic CT reports received higher reader ratings than conventional free-text reports across most evaluated dimensions, with the largest differences observed for information findability and clinical utility. These findings support further evaluation of radiologist-supervised LLM-assisted report structuring, including formal source-to-output validation and randomized multicenter assessment, before clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42850632What 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.