Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40643871›Full record

ArticleLa Radiologia medica2025

Automated MRI protocoling in neuroradiology in the era of large language models.

Lara Noelle Reiner, Moudather Chelbi, Leonard Fetscher, Juliane C Stöckel, Christoph Csapó-Schmidt, Shakhnaz Guseynova, Fares Al Mohamad, Keno Kyrill Bressem, Jawed Nawabi, Eberhard Siebert and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in La Radiologia medica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Lara Noelle ReinerDepartment of Neuroradiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. lara.reiner@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-7820-7223
Moudather ChelbiDepartment of Neuroradiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Leonard FetscherDepartment of Neuroradiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Juliane C StöckelDepartment of Neuroradiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Christoph Csapó-SchmidtDepartment of Neuroradiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Shakhnaz GuseynovaDepartment of Neuroradiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Fares Al MohamadDepartment of Neuroradiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Keno Kyrill BressemDepartment of Radiology, Technical University Munich, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Jawed NawabiDepartment of Neuroradiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Eberhard SiebertDepartment of Neuroradiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Mike P WattjesDepartment of Neuroradiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Michael ScheelDepartment of Neuroradiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Aymen MeddebDepartment of Neuroradiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study investigates the automation of MRI protocoling, a routine task in radiology, using large language models (LLMs), comparing an open-source (LLama 3.1 405B) and a proprietary model (GPT-4o) with and without retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), a method for incorporating domain-specific knowledge. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis retrospective study included MRI studies conducted between January and December 2023, along with institution-specific protocol assignment guidelines. Clinical questions were extracted, and a neuroradiologist established the gold standard protocol. LLMs were tasked with assigning MRI protocols and contrast medium administration with and without RAG. The results were compared to protocols selected by four radiologists. Token-based symmetric accuracy, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the McNemar test were used for evaluation.

resultsData from 100 neuroradiology reports (mean age = 54.2 years ± 18.41, women 50%) were included. RAG integration significantly improved accuracy in sequence and contrast media prediction for LLama 3.1 (Sequences: 38% vs. 70%, P < .001, Contrast Media: 77% vs. 94%, P < .001), and GPT-4o (Sequences: 43% vs. 81%, P < .001, Contrast Media: 79% vs. 92%, P = .006). GPT-4o outperformed LLama 3.1 in MRI sequence prediction (81% vs. 70%, P < .001), with comparable accuracies to the radiologists (81% ± 0.21, P = .43). Both models equaled radiologists in predicting contrast media administration (LLama 3.1 RAG: 94% vs. 91% ± 0.2, P = .37, GPT-4o RAG: 92% vs. 91% ± 0.24, P = .48).

conclusionLarge language models show great potential as decision-support tools for MRI protocoling, with performance similar to radiologists. RAG enhances the ability of LLMs to provide accurate, institution-specific protocol recommendations.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeuroimagingAdultAgedAutomationContrast MediaFemaleHumansLanguageLarge Language ModelsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesContrast MediaArtificial intelligenceAutomationClinicalDecision-support systemsLarge language modelsMagnetic resonance imagingNatural language processingNeuroradiology

Identifiers

PMID40643871
PMCPMC12454495

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.