MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417153281 · doi:10.4329/wjr.v17.i11.114754

Large language models and large concept models in radiology: Present challenges, future directions, and critical perspectives

2025· article· en· W4417153281 on OpenAlex
S A Merchant, Neesha Merchant, Shaju L Varghese, Mohd Javed Saifullah Shaikh

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Radiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlueprintTransformative learningContext (archaeology)WorkflowParadigm shiftConceptual frameworkKey (lock)Conceptual model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as transformative tools in radiology artificial intelligence (AI), offering significant capabilities in areas such as image report generation, clinical decision support, and workflow optimization. The first part of this manuscript presents a comprehensive overview of the current state of LLM applications in radiology, including their historical evolution, technical foundations, and practical uses. Despite notable advances, inherent architectural constraints, such as token-level sequential processing, limit their ability to perform deep abstract reasoning and holistic contextual understanding, which are critical for fine-grained diagnostic interpretation. We provide a critical perspective on current LLMs and discuss key challenges, including model reliability, bias, and explainability, highlighting the pressing need for novel approaches to advance radiology AI. Large concept models (LCMs) represent a nascent and promising paradigm in radiology AI, designed to transcend the limitations of token-level processing by utilizing higher-order conceptual representations and multimodal data integration. The second part of this manuscript introduces the foundational principles and theoretical framework of LCMs, highlighting their potential to facilitate enhanced semantic reasoning, long-range context synthesis, and improved clinical decision-making. Critically, the core of this section is the proposal of a novel theoretical framework for LCMs, formalized and extended from our group's foundational concept-based models - the world's earliest articulation of this paradigm for medical AI. This conceptual shift has since been externally validated and propelled by the recent publication of the LCM architectural proposal by Meta AI, providing a large-scale engineering blueprint for the future development of this technology. We also outline future research directions and the transformative implications of this emerging AI paradigm for radiologic practice, aiming to provide a blueprint for advancing toward human-like conceptual understanding in AI. While challenges persist, we are at the very beginning of a new era, and it is not unreasonable to hope that future advancements will overcome these hurdles, pushing the boundaries of AI in Radiology, far beyond even the most state-of-the-art models of today.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it