Cited by 32Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsRadiology practices and education

Agentic AI and large language models in radiology: opportunities and hallucination challenges

Open access
Salehi, Sara, Singh, Yashbir, Horst, Kelly K., Hathaway, Quincy A., Erickson, Bradley J.·2025·Bioengineering

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/bioengineering12121303

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 measured
  • Key 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.”

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

  1. [4]Zuo K. Jiang Y. MedHallBench: A New Benchmark for Assessing Hallucination in Medical Large Language Models arXiv 2024 2412.18947
  2. [6]Seth A. Manocha D. Agarwal C. Towards a Systematic Evaluation of Hallucinations in Large-Vision Language Models arXiv 2024 2412.20622
  3. [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
  4. [15]Kalai A.T. Nachum O. Vempala S.S. Zhang E. Why Language Models Hallucinate arXiv 2025 2509.01234
  5. [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)
  6. [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)
OpenAlex
W4416721821
Cited by
32
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 32
FWCI
7.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
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