ArticleScientific reports2026
Safety and efficacy of privacy-preserving models to create Lay summaries of brain MRI reports.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient access to radiology reports has heightened the need for patient-friendly communication. Automated generation of patient-centered summaries using large language models (LLMs) is a promising solution. However, their use on real-life reports is limited by privacy concerns. Here, we evaluate the safety and effectiveness of on-premise, privacy-preserving LLMs for generating lay summaries of real French brain MRI reports for emergency presentations of headache. In this retrospective study, we sampled 105 brain MRI reports (January–December 2022) for radiologist evaluation and a subset of 30 reports for non-physician evaluation. Three open-weights models (Llama 3.3 70B, Athene V2, Mistral Small) generated French lay summaries via a single standardized prompt. Radiologists’ mean ratings across models were high for exactness (4.10, 95% CI: 4.04–4.16), exhaustiveness (4.34, 95% CI: 4.29–4.39), didacticness (3.83, 95% CI: 3.79–3.88), and readiness for clinical use (3.84, 95% CI: 3.79–3.89). Non-physicians reported higher perceived understanding with summaries, from 2.85 (95% CI: 2.67–3.04) to 4.27 (95% CI: 4.15–4.38, p < 0.001). The correct identification rate for reports increased from 75.2% to 83.6% (p < 0.001). The ability to identify causal findings also improved, from 80.6% to 84.8% (p < 0.001) overall. Overall error rate in LLM-generated lay summaries was 19.7% (62/315), warranting expert oversight.
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.