Beyond Human Limits: The Promise and Pitfalls of Large Language Models in Radiology Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review examines the applications and challenges of large language models (LLMs), like OpenAI's ChatGPT, in radiology research. ChatGPT can assist radiology researchers in generating new ideas, finding and summarizing research papers, designing studies, analyzing data, and facilitating manuscript writing. LLMs are powerful tools with numerous applications in radiology research. However, users should be mindful of potential pitfalls, such as producing incorrect or biased outputs and inconsistent responses, along with ethical and privacy concerns. We discuss approaches to optimize models and address these issues, including prompting techniques like chain-of-thought prompting, retrieval-augmented generation, and fine-tuning. For researchers, prompt engineering can be particularly effective. This review seeks to demonstrate how researchers can utilize ChatGPT for radiology research while offering strategies to mitigate associated risks. We aim to help researchers harness these potent tools to safely boost their productivity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it