Optimizing patient understanding of spine MRI reports using AI: A prospective single center study

Sebastian Encalada , Sahil Gupta , Christine Hunt , Jason Eldrige , John Evans II , Johanna Mosquera-Moscoso , Laura Furtado Pessoa de Mendonca , Sharima Kanahan-Osman , Sohail Bade , Sahil Bade , Lisbet Ivicic , Stephanie Foskey , Jason Lyles , Juan Suarez , Aaron Fisher , Hamaad Khan , Jeffrey A. Stone , Mark Hurdle
{"title":"Optimizing patient understanding of spine MRI reports using AI: A prospective single center study","authors":"Sebastian Encalada ,&nbsp;Sahil Gupta ,&nbsp;Christine Hunt ,&nbsp;Jason Eldrige ,&nbsp;John Evans II ,&nbsp;Johanna Mosquera-Moscoso ,&nbsp;Laura Furtado Pessoa de Mendonca ,&nbsp;Sharima Kanahan-Osman ,&nbsp;Sohail Bade ,&nbsp;Sahil Bade ,&nbsp;Lisbet Ivicic ,&nbsp;Stephanie Foskey ,&nbsp;Jason Lyles ,&nbsp;Juan Suarez ,&nbsp;Aaron Fisher ,&nbsp;Hamaad Khan ,&nbsp;Jeffrey A. Stone ,&nbsp;Mark Hurdle","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Patient comprehension of spine MRI reports remains a significant challenge, potentially affecting healthcare engagement and outcomes. Artificial Intelligence (AI) may offer a solution for interpreting complex medical terminology into layman's terms language.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate the effectiveness of AI-based interpretation of spine MRI reports in improving patient comprehension and satisfaction.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A prospective, single-center survey study was conducted at a single institution's multidisciplinary pain and spine clinics from May 2024 to November 2024, enrolling 102 adult patients scheduled for spine MRI. Imaging reports were interpreted using a single AI-based Large Language Model (LLM) that is securely operated within the hospital's network, with interpretations independently reviewed by healthcare providers and research coordinators. A board-certified neuroradiologist evaluated the accuracy of AI interpretations using a standardized 5-point scale. We analyzed survey responses from participants who received both their original MRI reports and AI-interpreted versions, comparing comprehension, clarity, engagement, and satisfaction.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Participants reported higher comprehension with AI-interpreted MRI reports versus original radiology reports (8.50 ± 1.91 vs 6.56 ± 2.42; P &lt; .001). AI interpretations received superior scores for clarity (8.57 ± 1.79 vs 6.96 ± 2.12; P &lt; .001), understanding of medical conditions (7.75 ± 2.18 vs 6.27 ± 2.28; P &lt; .001), and healthcare engagement (8.35 ± 2.00 vs 6.78 ± 2.48; P &lt; .001). Accuracy assessment showed that 82.4 % of AI interpretations achieved high-quality ratings (≥4) [95 % CI: 69.7%–90.4 %], while 92.2 % were rated acceptable (≥3). Most participants (54.0 %) assigned the highest possible recommendation scores to AI interpretation. No significant differences were found between age groups and gender.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>AI-based interpretation of spine MRI reports significantly improved patient comprehension and satisfaction. Despite the promise of rapidly evolving AI-based technologies, a considerable percentage of AI interpretations were deemed to be inaccurate, warranting the need for further research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"4 1","pages":"Article 100550"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594425000111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Patient comprehension of spine MRI reports remains a significant challenge, potentially affecting healthcare engagement and outcomes. Artificial Intelligence (AI) may offer a solution for interpreting complex medical terminology into layman's terms language.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of AI-based interpretation of spine MRI reports in improving patient comprehension and satisfaction.

Methods

A prospective, single-center survey study was conducted at a single institution's multidisciplinary pain and spine clinics from May 2024 to November 2024, enrolling 102 adult patients scheduled for spine MRI. Imaging reports were interpreted using a single AI-based Large Language Model (LLM) that is securely operated within the hospital's network, with interpretations independently reviewed by healthcare providers and research coordinators. A board-certified neuroradiologist evaluated the accuracy of AI interpretations using a standardized 5-point scale. We analyzed survey responses from participants who received both their original MRI reports and AI-interpreted versions, comparing comprehension, clarity, engagement, and satisfaction.

Results

Participants reported higher comprehension with AI-interpreted MRI reports versus original radiology reports (8.50 ± 1.91 vs 6.56 ± 2.42; P < .001). AI interpretations received superior scores for clarity (8.57 ± 1.79 vs 6.96 ± 2.12; P < .001), understanding of medical conditions (7.75 ± 2.18 vs 6.27 ± 2.28; P < .001), and healthcare engagement (8.35 ± 2.00 vs 6.78 ± 2.48; P < .001). Accuracy assessment showed that 82.4 % of AI interpretations achieved high-quality ratings (≥4) [95 % CI: 69.7%–90.4 %], while 92.2 % were rated acceptable (≥3). Most participants (54.0 %) assigned the highest possible recommendation scores to AI interpretation. No significant differences were found between age groups and gender.

Conclusions

AI-based interpretation of spine MRI reports significantly improved patient comprehension and satisfaction. Despite the promise of rapidly evolving AI-based technologies, a considerable percentage of AI interpretations were deemed to be inaccurate, warranting the need for further research.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信