The DOI matches its DataCite record.
RadGame: An AI-Powered Platform for Radiology Education
Open accessAbstract
We introduce RadGame, an AI-powered gamified platform for radiology education that targets two core skills: localizing findings and generating reports. Traditional radiology training is based on passive exposure to cases or active practice with real-time input from supervising radiologists, limiting opportunities for immediate and scalable feedback. RadGame addresses this gap by combining gamification with large-scale public datasets and automated, AI-driven feedback that provides clear, structured guidance to human learners. In RadGame Localize, players draw bounding boxes around abnormalities, which are automatically compared to radiologist-drawn annotations from public datasets, and visual explanations are generated by vision-language models for user missed findings. In RadGame Report, players compose findings given a chest X-ray, patient age and indication, and receive structured AI feedback based on radiology report generation metrics, highlighting errors and omissions compared to a radiologist's written ground truth report from public datasets, producing a final performance and style score. In a prospective evaluation, participants using RadGame achieved a 68% improvement in localization accuracy compared to 17% with traditional passive methods and a 31% improvement in report-writing accuracy compared to 4% with traditional methods after seeing the same cases. RadGame highlights the potential of AI-driven gamification to deliver scalable, feedback-rich radiology training and reimagines the application of medical AI resources in education.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
Normal findings are excluded from evaluation because including them can introduce spurious variability due to stylistic differences across radiologists.
“Normal findings are excluded from evaluation because including them can introduce spurious variability due to stylistic differences across radiologists [2, 1].”
From CRIMSON: A Clinically-Grounded LLM-Based Metric for Generative Radiology Report Evaluation (2026) · cites this paper as [2]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Maria Fatima Ali, Naila Nadeem, Farah Khalid, Naveed Muhammad Anwar, Ghulam Nabie, and Charles Docherty. Sonogames: sounds of the right kind introducing gamification into radiology train- ing. BMC Research Notes, 14(1):341, 2021.
- Mohammed Baharoon, Luyang Luo, Michael Moritz, Abhinav Kumar, Sung Eun Kim, Xiaoman Zhang, Miao Zhu, Mahmoud Hussain Alabbad, Maha Sbayel Alhazmi, Neel P Mistry, et al. Rex- groundingct: A 3d chest ct dataset for segmen- tation of findings from free-text reports. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22030, 2025. · arXiv
- Soham Banerjee, Rishabh Agarwal, and William F Auffermann. Radhunters: gamification in radi- ology perceptual education. Journal of Medical Imaging, 10(S1):S11905-S11905, 2023.
- Som Subhro Biswas, Srirupa Biswas, Sandeep Singh Awal, and Hitesh Goyal. Current status of radiol- ogy education online: a comprehensive update. SN comprehensive clinical medicine, 4(1):182, 2022.
- Chi-Tung Cheng, Chih-Chi Chen, Chih-Yuan Fu, Chung-Hsien Chaou, Yu-Tung Wu, Chih-Po Hsu, Chih-Chen Chang, I-Fang Chung, Chi-Hsun Hsieh, Ming-Ju Hsieh, et al. Artificial intelligence-based education assists medical students' interpretation of hip fracture. Insights into Imaging, 11(1):119, 2020.
- Wei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anas- tasios N Angelopoulos, Tianle Li, Dacheng Li, Banghua Zhu, Hao Zhang, Michael I Jordan, Joseph E Gonzalez, et al. Chatbot arena: an open platform for evaluating llms by human preference. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8359-8388, 2024.
- Michael Tran Duong, Andreas M Rauschecker, Jef- frey D Rudie, Po-Hao Chen, Tessa S Cook, R Nick Bryan, and Suyash Mohan. Artificial intelligence for precision education in radiology. The British journal of radiology, 92(1103):20190389, 2019.
- Scott Freeman, Sarah L Eddy, Miles McDonough, Michelle K Smith, Nnadozie Okoroafor, Hannah Jordt, and Mary Pat Wenderoth. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineer- ing, and mathematics. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 111(23):8410-8415, 2014.
- Brent Griffith, Nadja Kadom, and Christopher M Straus. Radiology education in the 21st century: threats and opportunities. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 16(10):1482-1487, 2019.
- Muying Lucy Hui, Ethan Sacoransky, Andrew Chung, and Benjamin YM Kwan. Exploring the integration of artificial intelligence in radiology ed- ucation: A scoping review. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology, 54(3):332-338, 2025.
- Sophie Ostmeier, Justin Xu, Zhihong Chen, Maya Varma, Louis Blankemeier, Christian Bluethgen, Arne Md, Michael Moseley, Curtis Langlotz, Ak- shay Chaudhari, et al. Green: Generative radiology report evaluation and error notation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 374-390, 2024.
- Erin C Saricilar, Annette Burgess, and Anthony Free- man. A pilot study of the use of artificial intel- ligence with high-fidelity simulations in assessing endovascular procedural competence independent of a human examiner. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 93 (6):1525-1531, 2023.
- Andrew Sellergren, Sahar Kazemzadeh, Tiam Jaroensri, Atilla Kiraly, Madeleine Traverse, Timo Kohlberger, Shawn Xu, Fayaz Jamil, Cían Hughes, Charles Lau, et al. Medgemma technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05201, 2025. · arXiv
- Kody Shaw, Marcus A Henning, and Craig S Web- ster. Artificial intelligence in medical education: a scoping review of the evidence for efficacy and fu- ture directions. Medical Science Educator, pages 1-14, 2025.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
CRIMSON: A Clinically-Grounded LLM-Based Metric for Generative Radiology Report Evaluation
Baharoon, M., Heintz, T., Raissi, S., Alabbad, M., Alhammad, M., AlOmaish, H., Kim, S. E., Banerjee, O., & Rajpurkar, P. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.06183 · Cited by 2
“Normal findings are excluded from evaluation because including them can introduce spurious variability due to stylistic differences across radiologists [2, 1].”
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Baharoon, M., Raissi, S., Jun, J. S., Heintz, T., Alabbad, M., Alburkani, A., Kim, S. E., Kleinschmidt, K., Alhumaydhi, A. O., Alghamdi, M. M. G., Palacio, J. F., Bukhaytan, M., Prudlo, N. M., Akula, R., Chrisler, B., Galligos, B., Almutairi, M. O., Alanazi, M. M., Alrashdi, N. M., Hwang, J. J., Jaliparthi, S. S. D., Nelson, L. D., Nguyen, N., Suryadevara, S., Kim, S., Mohammed, M. F., Semenov, Y. R., Yu, K.-H., Aljouie, A., AlOmaish, H., Rodman, A., & Rajpurkar, P.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Maastricht University (NL)
- King Abdulaziz Medical City (SA)
- Tufts University (US)
- Saint Louis University (US)
- King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (SA)
- King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre (SA)
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2509.13270
- OpenAlex
- W4415317928
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Harvard University
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
- Keywords
- radiology education, gamification, AI-driven feedback, automated reporting, lesion localization, chest radiography, vision-language models, medical image annotation, radiology report writing
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