Bringing doctors together

or

A free, private network for verified physicians

Leading voices

Dr. Julie Bulman

Interventional Radiology · BIDMC

View

Dr. Ram Vaidhyanath

Neuroradiology

View

Dr. Monica Sheth

Breast Imaging · NYU Langone

View

Dr. Victoria Chernyak

Abdominal Imaging · CUIMC

View

Dr. Judith Gadde

Neuroradiology · Lurie Children's Hospital

View

Dr. Wende Gibbs

Neuroradiology · Barrow Neurological Institute

View

Dr. Laura Hayes

Peds Radiology · Children's Healthcare of Atlanta

View

Dr. Amy Patel

Breast Imaging · UKHS

View

Dr. Erin Alaia

MSK Radiology · NYU Langone

View

Dr. Lincoln Berland

Abdominal Imaging · UAB

View
  • Discover your community

  • Stay current

  • A profile that represents you

  • Find your people

About RoonPrivacyTerms

    Overview

    Comparative Analysis of Large Language Model Performance in Appropriate Diagnostic Imaging Modality Selection.

    May 8, 2026DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2026.05.012Journal ArticleJACR

    Written by: James R RybczykKanhai S AminVarun ChamartyPeyton FletcherEdward R MelnickHoward P Forman

    Find these authors on Roon

    HF
    Dr. Howard Forman
    Emergency & Trauma · Yale College

    Summary

    BACKGROUND: Large language models (LLMs) show promise for guiding appropriate diagnostic imaging modality selection according to ACR criteria.PURPOSE: This study compared seven LLMs - OpenEvidence (OpenEvidence Inc., Miami, Florida); OpenAI's GPT-5 Thinking and GPT-5 (OpenAI, San Francisco, California); Anthropic's Opus 4.1 and Sonnet 4.5 (Anthropic, San Francisco, California); and Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro and 2,5 Flash (Google LLC, Mountain View, California) - using 50 clinical vignettes to assess accuracy amd clinical reasoning in formulating imaging modality recommendations.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty text-based clinical vignettes were created from ACR guidelines, featuring five variants of 10 different medical complaints with subtle symptomatic or demographic alterations. A 3-point Likert scale was used to evaluate four performance metrics: imaging appropriateness, technical specificity, clinical rationale strength, and citation quality. Readability and word count were also assessed. Two blinded, independent reviewers rated the LLM outputs, with discrepancies resolved via consensus. A third reviewer was included for persistent disagreements. Analysis involved Friedman's test followed by pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank testing with Holm correction (P < .05).RESULTS: Friedman testing demonstrated significant differences across all performance domains (P≤ .031). Appropriateness scores (range 1.60-1.88 out of 2.00) revealed no significant pairwise differences. Technical specificity (range 1.82-2.00) and clinical rationale (range 1.52-1.88) showed no significant pairwise differences. Citation quality (range 0.40-2.00) was the most variable; Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemini 2.5 Flash hallucinated citations in 80% and 76% of prompts, respectively, performing worse than all other models (P < .001). Readability scores ranged from 15.27 to 22.19, and word counts from 90.10 to 195.02.CONCLUSION: All LLMs selected appropriate imaging modalities using reasonable clinical justification. Citation validity varied widely. Ensuring congruence between clinical reasoning and cited sources is essential before successful implementation.
    HFDr. Howard Forman
    Leading Voice

    Dr. Howard Forman

    Radiology · Emergency & Trauma Radiology
    Yale University
    howardf
    New Haven, CT, USA