利用大型语言模型提高放射学报告的可读性:系统回顾。

Vasant Patwardhan, Divya Balchander, David Fussell, John Joseph, Aditya Joshi, Hayden Troutt, Justin Ling, Katherine Wei, Brent Weinberg, Daniel Chow
{"title":"利用大型语言模型提高放射学报告的可读性:系统回顾。","authors":"Vasant Patwardhan, Divya Balchander, David Fussell, John Joseph, Aditya Joshi, Hayden Troutt, Justin Ling, Katherine Wei, Brent Weinberg, Daniel Chow","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.09.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients increasingly have direct access to their medical record. Radiology reports are complex and difficult for patients to understand and contextualize. One solution is to use large language models (LLMs) to translate reports into patient-accessible language. Objective This review summarizes the existing literature on using LLMs for the simplification of patient radiology reports. We also propose guidelines for best practices in future studies.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Studies published and indexed using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar up to February 2025 were included. Inclusion criteria comprised of studies that used large language models for simplification of diagnostic or interventional radiology reports for patients and evaluated readability. Exclusion criteria included non-English manuscripts, abstracts, conference presentations, review articles, retracted articles, and studies that did not focus on report simplification. The Mixed Methods Appraisal tool (MMAT) 2018 was used for bias assessment. Given the diversity of results, studies were categorized based on reporting methods, and qualitative and quantitative findings were presented to summarize key insights.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>A total of 2126 citations were identified and 17 were included in the qualitative analysis. 71% of studies utilized a single LLM, while 29% of studies utilized multiple LLMs. The most prevalent LLMs included ChatGPT, Google Bard/Gemini, Bing Chat, Claude, and Microsoft Copilot. All studies that assessed quantitative readability metrics (n=12) reported improvements. Assessment of simplified reports via qualitative methods demonstrated varied results with physician vs non-physician raters.</p><p><strong>Conclusion and clinical impact: </strong>LLMs demonstrate the potential to enhance the accessibility of radiology reports for patients, but the literature is limited by heterogeneity of inputs, models, and evaluation metrics across existing studies. We propose a set of best practice guidelines to standardize future LLM research.</p>","PeriodicalId":73968,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Leveraging Large Language Models to Enhance Radiology Report Readability: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Vasant Patwardhan, Divya Balchander, David Fussell, John Joseph, Aditya Joshi, Hayden Troutt, Justin Ling, Katherine Wei, Brent Weinberg, Daniel Chow\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.09.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients increasingly have direct access to their medical record. Radiology reports are complex and difficult for patients to understand and contextualize. One solution is to use large language models (LLMs) to translate reports into patient-accessible language. Objective This review summarizes the existing literature on using LLMs for the simplification of patient radiology reports. We also propose guidelines for best practices in future studies.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Studies published and indexed using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar up to February 2025 were included. Inclusion criteria comprised of studies that used large language models for simplification of diagnostic or interventional radiology reports for patients and evaluated readability. Exclusion criteria included non-English manuscripts, abstracts, conference presentations, review articles, retracted articles, and studies that did not focus on report simplification. The Mixed Methods Appraisal tool (MMAT) 2018 was used for bias assessment. Given the diversity of results, studies were categorized based on reporting methods, and qualitative and quantitative findings were presented to summarize key insights.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>A total of 2126 citations were identified and 17 were included in the qualitative analysis. 71% of studies utilized a single LLM, while 29% of studies utilized multiple LLMs. The most prevalent LLMs included ChatGPT, Google Bard/Gemini, Bing Chat, Claude, and Microsoft Copilot. All studies that assessed quantitative readability metrics (n=12) reported improvements. Assessment of simplified reports via qualitative methods demonstrated varied results with physician vs non-physician raters.</p><p><strong>Conclusion and clinical impact: </strong>LLMs demonstrate the potential to enhance the accessibility of radiology reports for patients, but the literature is limited by heterogeneity of inputs, models, and evaluation metrics across existing studies. We propose a set of best practice guidelines to standardize future LLM research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73968,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2025.09.004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2025.09.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:越来越多的患者可以直接访问他们的医疗记录。放射学报告对患者来说是复杂和难以理解的。一种解决方案是使用大型语言模型(llm)将报告翻译成患者可访问的语言。目的总结利用LLMs简化患者放射学报告的现有文献。我们还提出了未来研究的最佳实践指南。证据获取:按照PRISMA指南进行系统评价。纳入了截至2025年2月使用PubMed、Scopus和谷歌Scholar发表和索引的研究。纳入标准包括使用大型语言模型简化患者诊断或介入放射学报告并评估可读性的研究。排除标准包括非英文手稿、摘要、会议报告、综述文章、撤回的文章和没有着重于报告简化的研究。使用混合方法评估工具(MMAT) 2018进行偏倚评估。鉴于结果的多样性,根据报告方法对研究进行了分类,并提出了定性和定量研究结果,以总结关键见解。证据综合:共鉴定出2126篇引文,其中17篇纳入定性分析。71%的研究使用一个LLM,而29%的研究使用多个LLM。最流行的法学硕士包括ChatGPT、b谷歌Bard/Gemini、Bing Chat、Claude和Microsoft Copilot。所有评估定量可读性指标的研究(n=12)都报告了改善。通过定性方法对简化报告的评估表明,医生与非医生评分者的结果各不相同。结论和临床影响:llm展示了增强患者放射学报告可及性的潜力,但文献受到现有研究输入、模型和评估指标异质性的限制。我们提出了一套最佳实践指南,以规范未来的法学硕士研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Leveraging Large Language Models to Enhance Radiology Report Readability: A Systematic Review.

Background: Patients increasingly have direct access to their medical record. Radiology reports are complex and difficult for patients to understand and contextualize. One solution is to use large language models (LLMs) to translate reports into patient-accessible language. Objective This review summarizes the existing literature on using LLMs for the simplification of patient radiology reports. We also propose guidelines for best practices in future studies.

Evidence acquisition: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Studies published and indexed using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar up to February 2025 were included. Inclusion criteria comprised of studies that used large language models for simplification of diagnostic or interventional radiology reports for patients and evaluated readability. Exclusion criteria included non-English manuscripts, abstracts, conference presentations, review articles, retracted articles, and studies that did not focus on report simplification. The Mixed Methods Appraisal tool (MMAT) 2018 was used for bias assessment. Given the diversity of results, studies were categorized based on reporting methods, and qualitative and quantitative findings were presented to summarize key insights.

Evidence synthesis: A total of 2126 citations were identified and 17 were included in the qualitative analysis. 71% of studies utilized a single LLM, while 29% of studies utilized multiple LLMs. The most prevalent LLMs included ChatGPT, Google Bard/Gemini, Bing Chat, Claude, and Microsoft Copilot. All studies that assessed quantitative readability metrics (n=12) reported improvements. Assessment of simplified reports via qualitative methods demonstrated varied results with physician vs non-physician raters.

Conclusion and clinical impact: LLMs demonstrate the potential to enhance the accessibility of radiology reports for patients, but the literature is limited by heterogeneity of inputs, models, and evaluation metrics across existing studies. We propose a set of best practice guidelines to standardize future LLM research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信