Evaluation of Radiology Residents’ Reporting Skills Using Large Language Models: An Observational Study
Authors:
- Natsuko AtsukawaNANatsuko Atsukawa
- Hiroyuki TatekawaHTHiroyuki Tatekawa
- Tatsushi OuraTOTatsushi Oura
- Shu MatsushitaSMShu Matsushita
- Daisuke HoriuchiDHDaisuke Horiuchi
- Hirotaka TakitaHTHirotaka Takita
- Yasuhito MitsuyamaYMYasuhito Mitsuyama
- Taro ShimonoTSTaro Shimono
- Yukio MikiYMYukio Miki
- Daiju UedaDUDaiju Ueda
Preprint
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to objectively evaluate radiology resident reports; however, research on their use for feedback in radiology training and assessment of resident skill development remains limited. Purpose: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of LLMs in revising radiology reports by comparing them with reports verified by board-certified radiologists and to analyze the progression of resident’s reporting skills over time. Materials and methods: To identify the LLM that best aligned with human radiologists, 100 reports were randomly selected from a total of 7376 reports authored by nine first-year radiology residents. The reports were evaluated based on six criteria: (1) Addition of missing positive findings, (2) Deletion of findings, (3) Addition of negative findings, (4) Correction of the expression of findings, (5) Correction of the diagnosis, and (6) Proposal of additional examinations or treatments. Reports were segmented into four time-based terms, and 900 reports (450 CT and 450 MRI) were randomly chosen from the initial and final terms of the residents’ first year. The revised rates for each criterion were compared between the first and last terms using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test. Results: Among the LLMs tested, GPT-4o demonstrated the highest level of agreement with board-certified radiologists. Significant improvements were noted in Criteria 1–3 when comparing reports from the first and last terms (all P < 0.023) using GPT-4o. In contrast, no significant changes were observed for Criteria 4–6. Despite this, all criteria except for Criterion 6 showed progressive enhancement over time. Conclusion: LLMs can effectively provide feedback on commonly corrected areas in radiology reports, enabling residents to objectively identify and improve their weaknesses and monitor their progress. Additionally, LLMs may help reduce the workload of radiologists’ mentors.Keywords
All Related Versions
- Published version: Japanese Journal of Radiology, 43 (7), 1204.
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparative analysis of GPT-4-based ChatGPT’s diagnostic performance with radiologists using real-world radiology reports of brain tumorsEuropean Radiology, 2024
- From Revisions to Insights: Converting Radiology Report Revisions into Actionable Educational Feedback Using Generative AI ModelsJournal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine, 2024
- ChatGPT’s diagnostic performance based on textual vs. visual information compared to radiologists’ diagnostic performance in musculoskeletal radiologyEuropean Radiology, 2024
- Diagnostic performances of GPT-4o, Claude 3 Opus, and Gemini 1.5 Pro in “Diagnosis Please” casesJapanese Journal of Radiology, 2024
- Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of GPT-4-based ChatGPT, GPT-4V-based ChatGPT, and Radiologists in Challenging Neuroradiology CasesClinical Neuroradiology, 2024
- Integrating AI in radiology: insights from GPT-generated reports and multimodal LLM performance on European Board of Radiology examinationsJapanese Journal of Radiology, 2024
- The impact of large language models on radiology: a guide for radiologists on the latest innovations in AIJapanese Journal of Radiology, 2024
- Accuracy of ChatGPT generated diagnosis from patient's medical history and imaging findings in neuroradiology casesNeuroradiology, 2023
- Performance evaluation of ChatGPT, GPT-4, and Bard on the official board examination of the Japan Radiology SocietyJapanese Journal of Radiology, 2023
- Preliminary assessment of automated radiology report generation with generative pre-trained transformers: comparing results to radiologist-generated reportsJapanese Journal of Radiology, 2023