ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2026
Evaluating Generative Artificial Intelligence as an Educational Tool for Radiology Resident Report Drafting.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRadiology residents require timely, personalized feedback to develop accurate image analysis and reporting skills. Increasing clinical workload often limits attendings' ability to provide guidance. This study evaluates a HIPAA-compliant Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT)-4o system that delivers automated feedback on breast imaging reports drafted by residents in real clinical settings.
methodsWe analyzed 5,000 resident-attending report pairs from routine practice at a multisite US health system. GPT-4o was prompted with clinical instructions to identify common errors and provide feedback. A reader study using 100 report pairs was conducted. Four attending radiologists and four residents independently reviewed each pair, determined whether predefined error types were present, and rated GPT-4o's feedback as helpful or not. Agreement between GPT and readers was assessed using percent match. Interreader reliability was measured with Krippendorff's α. Educational value was measured as the proportion of cases rated helpful.
resultsThree common error types were identified: (1) omission or addition of key findings, (2) incorrect use or omission of technical descriptors, and (3) final assessment inconsistent with findings. GPT-4o showed strong agreement with attending consensus: 90.5%, 78.3%, and 90.4% (Cohen's κ: 0.790, 0.550, and 0.615) across error types. Interreader reliability among all eight readers showed moderate to substantial variability (α = 0.767, 0.595, 0.567). When each reader was individually replaced with GPT-4o and interreader agreement among seven readers and GPT was recalculated, the effect was not statistically significant (Δ = -0.004 to 0.002, all P > .05). GPT's feedback was rated helpful in most cases: 89.8%, 83.0%, and 92.0%. DISCUSSION: ChatGPT-4o can reliably identify key educational errors. It may serve as a scalable tool to support radiology education.
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.