ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
Cutting Edge to Cutting Time: Can ChatGPT Improve the Radiologist's Reporting?
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of proprietary and fine-tuned large language models for multi-label classification of billing codes from radiology reports.European radiology · 2026Article
- Evaluating Large Language Models for Turkish Emergency CT Impression Drafting: Quality, Critical Omissions, and Readability.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- [Artificial intelligence in musculoskeletal radiology : Current advances and emerging frontiers].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Using generative artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a narrative review and proposed agenda for implementation.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Review
- [Misdiagnoses in the diagnostics of the abdomen and pelvis].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Generative AI and large language models in nuclear medicine: current status and future prospects.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiology-structured reports (SR) have many advantages over free text (FT), but the wide implementation of SR is still lagging. A powerful tool such as GPT-4 can address this issue. We aim to employ a web-based reporting tool powered by GPT-4 capable of converting FT to SR and then evaluate its impact on reporting time and report quality. Thirty abdominopelvic CT scans were reported by two radiologists across two sessions (15 scans each): a control session using traditional reporting methods and an AI-assisted session employing a GPT-4-powered web application to structure free text into structured reports. For each radiologist, the output included 15 control finalized reports, 15 AI-assisted pre-edits, and 15 post-edit finalized reports. Reporting turnaround times were assessed, including total reporting time (TRT) and case reporting time (TATc). Quality assessments were conducted by two blinded radiologists. TRT and TATc have decreased with the use of the AI-assisted reporting tool, although statistically not significant (p-value > 0.05). Mean TATc for RAD-1 decreased from 00:20:08 to 00:16:30 (hours:minutes:seconds) and TRT decreased from 05:02:00 to 04:08:00. Mean TATc for RAD-2 decreased from 00:12:04 to 00:10:04 and TRT decreased from 03:01:00 to 02:31:00. Quality scores of the finalized reports with and without AI-assistance were comparable with no significant differences. Adjusting the AI-assisted TATc by removing the editing time showed statistically significant results compared to the control for both radiologists (p-value < 0.05). The AI-assisted reporting tool can generate SR while reducing TRT and TATc without sacrificing report quality. Editing time is a potential area for further improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.