Evaluating Generative AI as an Educational Tool for Radiology Resident Report Drafting
September 22, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Journal of the American College of Radiology
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Antonio Verdone, Aidan Cardall, Fardeen Siddiqui, Motaz Nashawaty, Danielle Rigau, Youngjoon Kwon, Mira Yousef, Shalin Patel, Alex Kieturakis, Eric Kim, Laura Heacock, Beatriu Reig, Yiqiu Shen
arXiv ID
2511.02839
Category
cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction
Cross-listed
cs.AI,
cs.CY
Citations
0
Venue
Journal of the American College of Radiology
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Objective: Radiology residents require timely, personalized feedback to develop accurate image analysis and reporting skills. Increasing clinical workload often limits attendings' ability to provide guidance. This study evaluates a HIPAA-compliant GPT-4o system that delivers automated feedback on breast imaging reports drafted by residents in real clinical settings. Methods: We analyzed 5,000 resident-attending report pairs from routine practice at a multi-site U.S. health system. GPT-4o was prompted with clinical instructions to identify common errors and provide feedback. A reader study using 100 report pairs was conducted. Four attending radiologists and four residents independently reviewed each pair, determined whether predefined error types were present, and rated GPT-4o's feedback as helpful or not. Agreement between GPT and readers was assessed using percent match. Inter-reader reliability was measured with Krippendorff's alpha. Educational value was measured as the proportion of cases rated helpful. Results: Three common error types were identified: (1) omission or addition of key findings, (2) incorrect use or omission of technical descriptors, and (3) final assessment inconsistent with findings. GPT-4o showed strong agreement with attending consensus: 90.5%, 78.3%, and 90.4% across error types. Inter-reader reliability showed moderate variability (Ξ± = 0.767, 0.595, 0.567), and replacing a human reader with GPT-4o did not significantly affect agreement (Ξ = -0.004 to 0.002). GPT's feedback was rated helpful in most cases: 89.8%, 83.0%, and 92.0%. Discussion: ChatGPT-4o can reliably identify key educational errors. It may serve as a scalable tool to support radiology education.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Human-Computer Interaction
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Identifying Stable Patterns over Time for Emotion Recognition from EEG
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Learning for Sensor-based Human Activity Recognition: Overview, Challenges and Opportunities
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted