Agentic AI and large language models in radiology: opportunities and hallucination challenges
Open accessAbstract
The field of radiology is experiencing rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs), yet their tendency to generate hallucinations (plausible but incorrect information) remains a significant barrier to trust. This comprehensive review evaluates emerging agentic artificial intelligence (AI) approaches, including multi-agent role-based systems, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and uncertainty quantification, to assess their potential for reducing hallucinations in radiology workflows. Evidence from 2024 to 2025 demonstrates that agentic AI can improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce error rates, though these methods remain computationally demanding and lack comprehensive clinical validation. Multi-agent frameworks enable cross-validation through role-based specialization and systematic workflow orchestration, while RAG strategies enhance accuracy by grounding responses in verified medical literature. Within multi-agent systems, uncertainty quantification enables agents to communicate confidence levels to one another, allowing them to appropriately weigh each other’s contributions during collaborative analysis. While multi-agent frameworks and RAG strategies show significant promise, practical deployment will require careful integration with human oversight, robust evaluation metrics tailored to medical imaging tasks, and regulatory adaptation to ensure safe clinical use in diverse patient populations and imaging modalities.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The addition of XAI governance at each agent node, rather than only at the system's final output, is the design innovation that distinguishes this framework from existing multi-agent clinical AI architectures.
“The addition of XAI governance at each agent node, rather than only at the system’s final output, is the design innovation that distinguishes this framework from existing multi-agent clinical AI architectures (Salehi et al., 2025).”
From A generative AI multi-agent framework with integrated XAI governance for cancer diagnostics: from multi-omics interpretation to lifestyle risk stratification (2026) · cites this paper as Salehi et al., 2025
Section 4 (page unavailable) describes validation checkpoints between agent stages and says agent communication can make reasoning more interpretable. Section 5 (page unavailable) likewise describes verifying outputs before they pass to the next agent. Neither section identifies XAI governance at each agent node or says that this is the innovation distinguishing the citing framework from existing multi-agent clinical AI architectures. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredKey barriers to translation include the generation of clinically plausible but factually incorrect statements (hallucinations) and the lack of structured frameworks that decompose generation into auditable, verifiable steps amenable to clinical governance.
“Key barriers include the generation of clinically plausible but factually incorrect statements—so-called hallucinations (11, 12)—and the lack of structured frameworks that decompose generation into auditable, verifiable steps amenable to clinical governance.”
From Swin-Qwen3: a three-stage vision–language framework for automated radiology report generation with multi-agent verification (2026) · cites this paper as [12]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 32
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- [4]Zuo K. Jiang Y. MedHallBench: A New Benchmark for Assessing Hallucination in Medical Large Language Models arXiv 2024 2412.18947
- [6]Seth A. Manocha D. Agarwal C. Towards a Systematic Evaluation of Hallucinations in Large-Vision Language Models arXiv 2024 2412.20622
- [9]Zhang S. Sambara S. Banerjee O. Acosta J. Fahrner L.J. Rajpurkar P. RadFlag: A Black-Box Hallucination Detection Method for Medical Vision Language Models arXiv 2024 2411.00299
- [15]Kalai A.T. Nachum O. Vempala S.S. Zhang E. Why Language Models Hallucinate arXiv 2025 2509.01234
- [22]Jin W. Vincent N. Hamarneh G. Position: AI for Just Work: Constructing Diverse Imaginations of AI beyond “Replacing Humans” 2025 Available online: https://openreview.net/forum?id=n1rqG1LnRF (accessed on 17 November 2025)
- [25]Zhu Y. He Z. Hu H. Zheng X. Zhang X. Wang Z. Gao J. Ma L. Yu L. MedAgentBoard: Benchmarking Multi-Agent Collaboration with Conventional Methods for Diverse Medical Tasks arXiv 2025 2505.12371
- Authors
- Salehi, S., Singh, Y., Horst, K. K., Hathaway, Q. A., & Erickson, B. J.
- Affiliations
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Salehi, Sara
- Erickson, Bradley J.
- Venue
- Bioengineering
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2025-11-26
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1303
- ISSN
- 2306-5354 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12729288
- OpenAlex
- W4416721821
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32
- FWCI
- 7.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Bioengineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Mayo Clinic Department of Radiology
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
- Keywords
- agentic AI, large language models, hallucination mitigation, radiology, multi-agent systems, retrieval-augmented generation, uncertainty quantification, diagnostic imaging, diagnostic accuracy, human oversight, clinical validation, regulatory adaptation
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