ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Evaluating large language model-generated brain MRI protocols: performance of GPT4o, o3-mini, DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen2.5-72B.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- ONCO-RADS-guided Large Language Models for Extraction and Classification of Incidental Findings on Whole-Body Imaging Reports.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2026Article
- Automated MRI protocoling in neuroradiology in the era of large language models.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the potential of LLMs to generate sequence-level brain MRI protocols. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study employed a dataset of 150 brain MRI cases derived from local imaging request forms. Reference protocols were established by two neuroradiologists. GPT-4o, o3-mini, DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen2.5-72B were employed to generate brain MRI protocols based on the case descriptions. Protocol generation was conducted (1) with additional in-context learning involving local standard protocols (enhanced) and (2) without additional information (base). Additionally, two radiology residents independently defined MRI protocols. The sum of redundant and missing sequences (accuracy index) was defined as performance metric. Accuracy indices were compared between groups using paired t-tests.
resultsThe two neuroradiologists achieved substantial inter-rater agreement (Cohen's κ = 0.74). o3-mini demonstrated superior performance (base: 2.65 ± 1.61; enhanced: 1.94 ± 1.25), followed by GPT-4o (base: 3.11 ± 1.83; enhanced: 2.23 ± 1.48), DeepSeek-R1 (base: 3.42 ± 1.84; enhanced: 2.37 ± 1.42) and Qwen2.5-72B (base: 5.95 ± 2.78; enhanced: 2.75 ± 1.54). o3-mini consistently outperformed the other models with a significant margin. All four models showed highly significant performance improvements under the enhanced condition (adj. p < 0.001 for all models). The highest-performing LLM (o3-mini [enhanced]) yielded an accuracy index comparable to residents (o3-mini [enhanced]: 1.94 ± 1.25, resident 1: 1.77 ± 1.29, resident 2: 1.77 ± 1.28).
conclusionOur findings demonstrate the promising potential of LLMs in automating brain MRI protocoling, especially when augmented through in-context learning. o3-mini exhibited superior performance, followed by GPT-4o. KEY POINTS: QuestionBrain MRI protocoling is a time-consuming, non-interpretative task, exacerbating radiologist workload. Findingso3-mini demonstrated superior brain MRI protocoling performance. All models showed notable improvements when augmented with local standard protocols. Clinical relevanceMRI protocoling is a time-intensive, non-interpretative task that adds to radiologist workload; large language models offer potential for (semi-)automation of this process.
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.