ArticleEuropean radiology2026
GPT-4 for automated sequence-level determination of MRI protocols based on radiology request forms from clinical routine.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Multisequence Approach to PIN Neuropathy: Bridging Imaging and Talent Development: Letter to the Editor.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- GPT-4o for Automated Determination of Follow-up Examinations Based on Radiology Reports from Clinical Routine.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Influence of structured output constraints on GPT-5-Thinking, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and open-weight LLMs for radiology protocol selection.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Initial Insights Into an Institutional Secure Large Language Model for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Examination Requests: Retrospective Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Reply to the Letter to the Editor: The role of prompt engineering and referral completeness in evaluating GPT-4 for MRI protocols.European radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.