Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42671701›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026

Artificial Intelligence-enhanced cardiac MRI reporting: expert validation and patient-centered outcomes.

Antonio Frontera, Alexios Kotinas, Alberto Musella, Martina Morelli, Filippo Brucato, Santo Dellegrottaglie, Claudia Camaioni, Carlo Mario Gallinoro, Andrea Caccia, Matteo Baroni and 11 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 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

21 authors.

Antonio FronteraCardiology III Department, EP laboratory, De Gasperis Cardio Center, Great Metropolitan Hospital Niguarda, Piazza dell'Ospedale Maggiore, 3, Milan, 20162, Italy.
Alexios KotinasCardiology III Department, EP laboratory, De Gasperis Cardio Center, Great Metropolitan Hospital Niguarda, Piazza dell'Ospedale Maggiore, 3, Milan, 20162, Italy. a.kotinas@campus.unimib.it.
Alberto MusellaDepartment of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Martina MorelliDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Filippo BrucatoDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Santo DellegrottaglieAdvanced Cardiovascular Imaging and Sports Cardiology Unit, Clinica Villa dei Fiori Acerra, Naples, Italy.
Claudia CamaioniCardiology Department, Istituto Clinico Città Studi, Milan, Italy.
Carlo Mario GallinoroAdvanced Cardiovascular Imaging and Sports Cardiology Unit, Clinica Villa dei Fiori Acerra, Naples, Italy.
Andrea CacciaDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Matteo BaroniCardiology III Department, EP laboratory, De Gasperis Cardio Center, Great Metropolitan Hospital Niguarda, Piazza dell'Ospedale Maggiore, 3, Milan, 20162, Italy.
Marco CarbonaroCardiology III Department, EP laboratory, De Gasperis Cardio Center, Great Metropolitan Hospital Niguarda, Piazza dell'Ospedale Maggiore, 3, Milan, 20162, Italy.
Roberto MenèCardiology III Department, EP laboratory, De Gasperis Cardio Center, Great Metropolitan Hospital Niguarda, Piazza dell'Ospedale Maggiore, 3, Milan, 20162, Italy.
Marisa VarrentiCardiology III Department, EP laboratory, De Gasperis Cardio Center, Great Metropolitan Hospital Niguarda, Piazza dell'Ospedale Maggiore, 3, Milan, 20162, Italy.
Giuseppina QuattrocchiCardiology IV Department, De Gasperis Cardio Center, Great Metropolitan Hospital Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Angela MilazzoCardiology IV Department, De Gasperis Cardio Center, Great Metropolitan Hospital Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Paola SormaniCardiology IV Department, De Gasperis Cardio Center, Great Metropolitan Hospital Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Ilaria BassiCardiology IV Department, De Gasperis Cardio Center, Great Metropolitan Hospital Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Patrizio MazzoneCardiology III Department, EP laboratory, De Gasperis Cardio Center, Great Metropolitan Hospital Niguarda, Piazza dell'Ospedale Maggiore, 3, Milan, 20162, Italy.
Gianluca PontoneDepartment of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Cristina GiannattasioDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Patrizia PedrottiCardiology IV Department, De Gasperis Cardio Center, Great Metropolitan Hospital Niguarda, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As patients increasingly access their own electronic health records, the dense technical language of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) reports has become a barrier both to patient comprehension and to decision-making by non-imaging physicians. We evaluated whether ChatGPT-4o can enhance the accessibility of CMR reports and generate clinical recommendations, and we quantified the accuracy, safety, and patient reception of these outputs. We prospectively enrolled 75 consecutive outpatients undergoing CMR at two Italian tertiary centres. Each physician-dictated report was processed with ChatGPT-4o through the web interface to produce a simplified patient-facing explanation and tailored clinical recommendations. Two expert cardiologists rated the correctness and completeness of the simplified reports on 5-point Likert scales, with inter-rater reliability by ICC(2,1). Three additional cardiologists rated the AI-generated recommendations for correctness, completeness, and potential harm after a calibration session using a shared written rubric. Patients completed paired questionnaires comparing the standard and AI-enhanced reports across six domains, analysed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Expert-rated correctness of the simplified reports was 4.63 ± 0.88 and completeness 4.42 ± 1.06, with excellent agreement (ICC 0.95-0.99). Patients rated AI-enhanced reports significantly higher than standard reports across every domain (all p < 0.001), including overall satisfaction (8.87 ± 1.11 vs. 6.56 ± 2.22 on a 10-point scale; +35%). AI-generated recommendations showed moderate correctness (patient-directed 3.73 ± 0.74; physician-directed 3.52 ± 0.74) and low mean harm (2.10 ± 0.67 and 2.16 ± 0.68). High-risk recommendations were infrequent but not negligible, affecting 1 patient (1.3%) for patient-directed and 5 patients (6.7%) for physician-directed content, and were concentrated in clinically complex cases. The AI-simplified report was comparable in length to the original (306 ± 112 vs. 284 ± 62 words) but was accompanied by additional tailored recommendations. ChatGPT-4o improved the accessibility of CMR reports and patients' perceived comprehension and satisfaction while preserving expert-validated report accuracy. Given a small but clinically relevant fraction of high-risk recommendations, large-language-model outputs should be deployed as adjunctive, physician-supervised decision support rather than autonomously.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceCardiac magnetic resonance imagingChatGPTLarge language modelsPatient-centered care

Identifiers

PMID42671701

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.