Cited by 58Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiology practices and educationHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Translating musculoskeletal radiology reports into patient-friendly summaries using ChatGPT-4

Kuckelman, Ian J., Wetley, Karla, Yi, Paul Hyunsoo, Ross, Andrew Bailey·2024·Skeletal Radiology

Abstract

Objective To assess the feasibility of using large language models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT-4, to generate concise and accurate layperson summaries of musculoskeletal radiology reports.Methods Sixty radiology reports, comprising 20 MR shoulder, 20 MR knee, and 20 MR lumbar spine reports, were obtained via PACS. The reports were deidentified and then submitted to ChatGPT-4, with the prompt "Produce an organized and concise layperson summary of the findings of the following radiology report. Target a reading level of 8-9th grade and word count <300 words." Three (two primary and one later added for validation) independent readers evaluated the summaries for completeness and accuracy compared to the original reports. Summaries were rated on a scale of 1 to 3: 1) summaries that were incorrect or incomplete, potentially providing harmful or confusing information; 2) summaries that were mostly correct and complete, unlikely to cause confusion or harm; and 3) summaries that were entirely correct and complete.Results All 60 responses met the criteria for word count and readability. Mean ratings for accuracy were 2.58 for reader 1, 2.71 for reader 2, and 2.77 for reader 3. Mean ratings for completeness were 2.87 for reader 1 and 2.73 for reader 2 and 2.87 for reader 3. For accuracy, reader 1 identified three summaries as a 1, reader 2 identified one, and reader 3 identified none. For the two primary readers, inter-reader agreement was low for accuracy (kappa 0.33) and completeness (kappa 0.29). There were no statistically significant changes in inter-reader agreement when the third reader's ratings were included in analysis.Conclusion Overall ratings for accuracy and completeness of the AI-generated layperson report summaries were high with only a small minority likely to be confusing or inaccurate. This study illustrates the potential for leveraging generative AI, such as ChatGPT-4, to automate the production of patient-friendly summaries for musculoskeletal MR imaging.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00256-024-04599-2

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 12 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kuckelman, I. J., Wetley, K., Yi, P. H., & Ross, A. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Corresponding author
Kuckelman, Ian J.
Venue
Skeletal Radiology
Published
2024-01-25
Volume
53
Issue
8
Pages
1621-1624
ISSN
  • 0364-2348 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2161
OpenAlex
W4391227238
Cited by
58
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 1
FWCI
5.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Skeletal Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
ChatGPT-4, large language models, generative AI, radiology report summarization, patient-friendly summary, musculoskeletal MRI, shoulder MRI, knee MRI, lumbar spine MRI, interobserver agreement
MeSH terms
Feasibility Studies, Humans, Musculoskeletal Diseases, Radiology Information Systems, Translating, Comprehension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review