Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42647045›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Automating the Management of Extraspinal Findings in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Spine Studies Using a Privacy-Preserving Large Language Model: Retrospective Validation Study.

Wilson Ong, Gifford Tan, Yong Han Ting, Shuliang Ge, Yi Liang Tan, Xi Zhen Low, Wei Chuan Tan, Andrew Makmur, Naomi Wenxin Leow, Muzammil Arif Din Abdul Jabbar and 5 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Wilson Ong *Department of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0262-3802
Gifford Tan *Department of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4277-391X
Yong Han TingDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8682-9914
Shuliang GeDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4928-1195
Yi Liang TanDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1544-1250
Xi Zhen LowDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1240-5908
Wei Chuan TanDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4922-1280
Andrew MakmurDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9631-4121
Naomi Wenxin LeowArtificial Intelligence Innovation Office, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6190-9478
Muzammil Arif Din Abdul JabbarSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4882-8486
Qai Ven YapBiostatistics Unit, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3215-1754
Shao Jin OngDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6407-7814
Jiong Hao Jonathan TanNational University Spine Institute, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9237-2586
Naresh KumarNational University Spine Institute, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4538-5031
James Thomas Patrick Decourcy HallinanDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0082-9033

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) spine studies frequently reveal extraspinal findings (ESFs) that require further evaluation; yet, the current process of manually reviewing radiology reports and navigating electronic medical records (EMRs) is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and prone to human error.

objectiveTo address this challenge, we propose using a privacy-preserving large language model (PP-LLM) to automate the identification, classification, and referral assessment of ESFs.

methodsA retrospective analysis of 405 consecutive MRI spine reports from the National University Hospital database, covering February to June 2024, was conducted. Two independent clinicians reviewed the reports and cross-referenced them with EMRs to identify ESFs from the imaging reports. The CT Extracolonic Findings Reporting and Data System (C-RADS) was adapted to determine the clinical significance of ESFs and whether specialty referral was required. The PP-LLM was designed to extract these findings, differentiate between new and preexisting conditions, classify their clinical significance, and generate appropriate referrals.

resultsA total of 405 MRI spine reports were initially identified. Five reports were excluded because no relevant EMRs were available, leaving 400 MRI reports from 395 patients for analysis. Among 395 patients (male: 48.1%, n=190; female: 51.9%, n=205; age: mean 54.7, SD 16.7, range 17-89 years), 163 (41.3%) had no ESFs and 232 (58.7%) were reported to have had at least one ESF. A total of 401 ESFs were identified, with the most common findings being renal (n=128, 31.9%), gynecological (n=110, 27.4%), and endocrine-related (n=48, 12%). The PP-LLM correctly detected 99.8% (400/401) of all ESFs and correctly identified all clinically urgent findings (3%, 12/401 of the total, for example, aortic dissection). It misclassified 2% (8/401) of cases into lower C-RADS categories, potentially downgrading clinically significant findings (eg, paranasal sinus mucosal thickening), and 1% (4/401) into higher C-RADS categories, upgrading clinically insignificant findings (eg, dependent changes in the lungs). Additionally, it achieved 98.5% accuracy in distinguishing new from preexisting findings and 96.3% accuracy in assigning the correct specialty referral decision (whether referral is needed, and correct subspecialty referral suggested). The PP-LLM demonstrated almost perfect agreement with the reference standard (Gwet κ=0.959, 95% CI 0.937-0.981), comparable to two human readers (reader 1: κ=0.943; reader 2: κ=0.934), with no statistically significant difference in C-RADS classification accuracy. Notably, it completed the analysis of each report in less than 5 seconds.

conclusionsThe PP-LLM demonstrated high accuracy and efficiency in automating the identification and classification of ESFs in MRI spine reports. By integrating this AI-driven automation into clinical workflows, this technology has the potential to enhance efficiency, reduce clinician administrative burden, ensure timely specialist referrals, and improve patient care.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingSpineAdultAgedAged, 80 and overElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansLarge Language ModelsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studiesextraspinal findingsincidental findingslarge language modelmagnetic resonance imagingreferrals

Identifiers

PMID42647045
PMCPMC13559147

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.