Abstract
Background Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as potential tools for automated radiology reporting. However, concerns regarding their fidelity, reliability, and clinical applicability remain. This systematic review examines the current literature on LLM-generated radiology reports. Methods We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies published between January 2015 and February 2025. Studies evaluating LLM-generated radiology reports were included. The study follows PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Results Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, six evaluated full radiology reports, while three focused on impression generation. Six studies assessed base LLMs, and three evaluated fine-tuned models. Fine-tuned models demonstrated better alignment with expert evaluations and achieved higher performance on natural language processing metrics compared to base models. All LLMs showed hallucinations, misdiagnoses, and inconsistencies. Conclusion LLMs show promise in radiology reporting. However, limitations in diagnostic accuracy and hallucinations necessitate human oversight. Future research should focus on improving evaluation frameworks, incorporating diverse datasets, and prospectively validating AI-generated reports in clinical workflows. Keywords Radiology reports, Large Language Models, Artificial Intelligence, Natural Language Processing, Automated Reporting, Clinical Evaluation, AI Alignment, Generative AI
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
his study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos