ArticleThe British journal of radiology2025
Evaluating the role of large language models in supporting patient education during the informed consent process for routine radiology procedures.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluated 3 LLM chatbots (GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-4-turbo, and GPT-4o) on their effectiveness in supporting patient education by answering common patient questions for CT, MRI, and DSA informed consent, assessing their accuracy and clarity.
methodsTwo radiologists formulated 90 questions categorized as general, clinical, or technical. Each LLM answered every question 5×. Radiologists then rated the responses for medical accuracy and clarity, while medical physicists assessed technical accuracy using a Likert scale. Semantic similarity was analyzed with SBERT and cosine similarity.
resultsRatings improved with newer model versions. Linear mixed-effects models revealed that GPT-4 models were rated significantly higher than GPT-3.5 (P < .001) by both physicians and physicists. However, physicians' ratings for GPT-4 models showed a significant performance decrease for complex modalities like DSA and MRI (P < .01), a pattern not observed in physicists' ratings. SBERT analysis revealed high internal consistency across all models. SBERT analysis revealed high internal consistency across all models.
conclusionVariability in ratings revealed that while models effectively handled general and technical questions, they struggled with contextually complex medical inquiries requiring personalized responses and nuanced understanding. Statistical analysis confirms that while newer models are superior, their performance is modality-dependent and perceived differently by clinical and technical experts. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study evaluates the potential of LLMs to enhance informed consent in radiology, highlighting strengths in general and technical questions while noting limitations with complex clinical inquiries, with performance varying significantly by model type and imaging modality.
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.