Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Radiology reports are essential for communicating imaging findings to guide diagnosis and treatment. Although most radiology reports are accurate, errors can occur in the final reports due to high workloads, use of dictation software, and human error. Advanced artificial intelligence models, such as GPT-4, show potential as tools to improve report accuracy. This retrospective study evaluated how GPT-4 performed in detecting and correcting errors in finalized radiology reports in real-world settings for abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) reports.</p> Methods <p>We evaluated finalized CT abdominopelvic reports from a tertiary health system by using GPT-4 with zero-shot learning techniques. Six radiologists each reviewed 100 of their finalized reports (randomly selected), evaluating GPT-4’s suggested revisions for agreement, acceptance, and clinical impact. The radiologists’ responses were compared by years in practice and sex.</p> Results <p>GPT-4 identified issues and suggested revisions for 91% of the 600 reports; most revisions addressed grammar (74%). The radiologists agreed with 27% of the revisions and accepted 23%. Most revisions were rated as having no (44%) or low (46%) clinical impact. Potential harm was rare (8%), with only 2 cases of potentially severe harm. Radiologists with less experience (≤ 7 years of practice) were more likely to agree with the revisions suggested by GPT-4 than those with more experience (34% vs. 20%, <i>P</i> = .003) and accepted a greater percentage of the revisions (32% vs. 15%, <i>P</i> = .003).</p> Conclusions <p>Although GPT-4 showed promise in identifying errors and improving the clarity of finalized radiology reports, most errors were categorized as minor, with no or low clinical impact. Collectively, the radiologists accepted 23% of the suggested revisions in their finalized reports. This study highlights the potential of GPT-4 as a prospective tool for radiology reporting, with further refinement needed for consistent use in clinical practice.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Improving radiology reporting accuracy: use of GPT-4 to reduce errors in reports

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月27日

查看全文
  • Connor J. Mayes,
  • Chloe Reyes,
  • Mia E. Truman,
  • Christopher A. Dodoo,
  • Cameron R. Adler,
  • Imon Banerjee,
  • Ashish Khandelwal,
  • Lauren F. Alexander,
  • Shannon P. Sheedy,
  • Cole P. Thompson,
  • Jacob A. Varner,
  • Maria Zulfiqar,
  • Nelly Tan

摘要

Purpose

Radiology reports are essential for communicating imaging findings to guide diagnosis and treatment. Although most radiology reports are accurate, errors can occur in the final reports due to high workloads, use of dictation software, and human error. Advanced artificial intelligence models, such as GPT-4, show potential as tools to improve report accuracy. This retrospective study evaluated how GPT-4 performed in detecting and correcting errors in finalized radiology reports in real-world settings for abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) reports.

Methods

We evaluated finalized CT abdominopelvic reports from a tertiary health system by using GPT-4 with zero-shot learning techniques. Six radiologists each reviewed 100 of their finalized reports (randomly selected), evaluating GPT-4’s suggested revisions for agreement, acceptance, and clinical impact. The radiologists’ responses were compared by years in practice and sex.

Results

GPT-4 identified issues and suggested revisions for 91% of the 600 reports; most revisions addressed grammar (74%). The radiologists agreed with 27% of the revisions and accepted 23%. Most revisions were rated as having no (44%) or low (46%) clinical impact. Potential harm was rare (8%), with only 2 cases of potentially severe harm. Radiologists with less experience (≤ 7 years of practice) were more likely to agree with the revisions suggested by GPT-4 than those with more experience (34% vs. 20%, P = .003) and accepted a greater percentage of the revisions (32% vs. 15%, P = .003).

Conclusions

Although GPT-4 showed promise in identifying errors and improving the clarity of finalized radiology reports, most errors were categorized as minor, with no or low clinical impact. Collectively, the radiologists accepted 23% of the suggested revisions in their finalized reports. This study highlights the potential of GPT-4 as a prospective tool for radiology reporting, with further refinement needed for consistent use in clinical practice.