ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026
Artificial Intelligence-enhanced cardiac MRI reporting: expert validation and patient-centered outcomes.
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.
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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
42671701What 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.