Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40779162›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

GPT-4 for automated sequence-level determination of MRI protocols based on radiology request forms from clinical routine.

Robert Terzis, Kenan Kaya, Thomas Schömig, Jan Paul Janssen, Andra-Iza Iuga, Jonathan Kottlors, Simon Lennartz, Carsten Gietzen, Cansin Gözdas, Lukas Müller and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

14 authors.

Robert Terzis *Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. robert.terzis@uk-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-1068-8477
Kenan Kaya *Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Thomas SchömigInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jan Paul JanssenInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Andra-Iza IugaInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jonathan KottlorsInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Simon LennartzInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Carsten GietzenInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Cansin GözdasInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Lukas MüllerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
Robert HahnfeldtInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
David MaintzInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Thomas DratschInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Lenhard PennigInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study evaluated GPT-4's accuracy in MRI sequence selection based on radiology request forms (RRFs), comparing its performance to radiology residents. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective study included 100 RRFs across four subspecialties (cardiac imaging, neuroradiology, musculoskeletal, and oncology). GPT-4 and two radiology residents (R1: 2 years, R2: 5 years MRI experience) selected sequences based on each patient's medical history and clinical questions. Considering imaging society guidelines, five board-certified specialized radiologists assessed protocols based on completeness, quality, and utility in consensus, using 5-point Likert scales. Clinical applicability was rated binarily by the institution's lead radiographer.

resultsGPT-4 achieved median scores of 3 (1-5) for completeness, 4 (1-5) for quality, and 4 (1-5) for utility, comparable to R1 (3 (1-5), 4 (1-5), 4 (1-5); each p > 0.05) but inferior to R2 (4 (1-5), 5 (1-5); p < 0.01, respectively, and 5 (1-5); p < 0.001). Subspecialty protocol quality varied: GPT-4 matched R1 (4 (2-4) vs. 4 (2-5), p = 0.20) and R2 (4 (2-5); p = 0.47) in cardiac imaging; showed no differences in neuroradiology (all 5 (1-5), p > 0.05); scored lower than R1 and R2 in musculoskeletal imaging (3 (2-5) vs. 4 (3-5); p < 0.01, and 5 (3-5); p < 0.001); and matched R1 (4 (1-5) vs. 2 (1-4), p = 0.12) as well as R2 (5 (2-5); p = 0.20) in oncology. GPT-4-based protocols were clinically applicable in 95% of cases, comparable to R1 (95%) and R2 (96%).

conclusionGPT-4 generated MRI protocols with notable completeness, quality, utility, and clinical applicability, excelling in standardized subspecialties like cardiac and neuroradiology imaging while yielding lower accuracy in musculoskeletal examinations. KEY POINTS: Question Long MRI acquisition times limit patient access, making accurate protocol selection crucial for efficient diagnostics, though it's time-consuming and error-prone, especially for inexperienced residents. Findings GPT-4 generated MRI protocols of remarkable yet inconsistent quality, performing on par with an experienced resident in standardized fields, but moderately in musculoskeletal examinations. Clinical relevance The large language model can assist less experienced radiologists in determining detailed MRI protocols and counteract increasing workloads. The model could function as a semi-automatic tool, generating MRI protocols for radiologists' confirmation, optimizing resource allocation, and improving diagnostics and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleHumansInternship and ResidencyMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceCardiac imagingLarge language modelsMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroradiology

Identifiers

PMID40779162
PMCPMC12953275

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.