Feasibility and acceptability of ChatGPT generated radiology report summaries for cancer patients

Objective Patients now have direct access to their radiology reports, which can include complex terminology and be difficult to understand. We assessed ChatGPT's ability to generate summarized MRI reports for patients with prostate cancer and evaluated physician satisfaction with the artificial...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Digital health 2023-01, Vol.9, p.20552076231221620
Main Authors: Chung, Eric M, Zhang, Samuel C, Nguyen, Anthony T, Atkins, Katelyn M, Sandler, Howard M, Kamrava, Mitchell
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Chatbots
Original
Patients
Prostate cancer
Questionnaires
Radiation
Response rates
Terminology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective Patients now have direct access to their radiology reports, which can include complex terminology and be difficult to understand. We assessed ChatGPT's ability to generate summarized MRI reports for patients with prostate cancer and evaluated physician satisfaction with the artificial intelligence (AI)-summarized report. Methods We used ChatGPT to summarize five full MRI reports for patients with prostate cancer performed at a single institution from 2021 to 2022. Three summarized reports were generated for each full MRI report. Full MRI and summarized reports were assessed for readability using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FK) score. Radiation oncologists were asked to evaluate the AI-summarized reports via an anonymous questionnaire. Qualitative responses were given on a 1–5 Likert-type scale. Fifty newly diagnosed prostate cancer patient MRIs performed at a single institution were additionally assessed for physician online portal response rates. Results Fifteen summarized reports were generated from five full MRI reports using ChatGPT. The median FK score for the full MRI reports and summarized reports was 9.6 vs. 5.0, (p 
ISSN:2055-2076
2055-2076
DOI:10.1177/20552076231221620