Felix Barajas Ordonez

Mina Farajiamiri, Jeta Sopa, Saba Afza et al.

Agentic retrieval-augmented reasoning pipelines are increasingly used to structure how large language models (LLMs) incorporate external evidence in clinical decision support. These systems iteratively retrieve curated domain knowledge and synthesize it into structured reports before answer selection. Although such pipelines can improve performance, their impact on reliability under model variability remains unclear. In real-world deployment, heterogeneous models may align, diverge, or synchronize errors in ways not captured by accuracy. We evaluated 34 LLMs on 169 expert-curated publicly available radiology questions, comparing zero-shot inference with a radiology-specific multi-step agentic retrieval condition in which all models received identical structured evidence reports derived from curated radiology knowledge. Agentic inference reduced inter-model decision dispersion (median entropy 0.48 vs. 0.13) and increased robustness of correctness across models (mean 0.74 vs. 0.81). Majority consensus also increased overall (P<0.001). Consensus strength and robust correctness remained correlated under both strategies (\r{ho}=0.88 for zero-shot; \r{ho}=0.87 for agentic), although high agreement did not guarantee correctness. Response verbosity showed no meaningful association with correctness. Among 572 incorrect outputs, 72% were associated with moderate or high clinically assessed severity, although inter-rater agreement was low (\k{appa}=0.02). Agentic retrieval therefore was associated with more concentrated decision distributions, stronger consensus, and higher cross-model robustness of correctness. These findings suggest that evaluating agentic systems through accuracy or agreement alone may not always be sufficient, and that complementary analyses of stability, cross-model robustness, and potential clinical impact are needed to characterize reliability under model variability.

Mahta Khoobi, Marc Sebastian von der Stueck, Felix Barajas Ordonez et al.

Structured reporting (SR) and artificial intelligence (AI) may transform how radiologists interact with imaging studies. This prospective study (July to December 2024) evaluated the impact of three reporting modes: free-text (FT), structured reporting (SR), and AI-assisted structured reporting (AI-SR), on image analysis behavior, diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, and user experience. Four novice and four non-novice readers (radiologists and medical students) each analyzed 35 bedside chest radiographs per session using a customized viewer and an eye-tracking system. Outcomes included diagnostic accuracy (compared with expert consensus using Cohen's $κ$), reporting time per radiograph, eye-tracking metrics, and questionnaire-based user experience. Statistical analysis used generalized linear mixed models with Bonferroni post-hoc tests with a significance level of ($P \le .01$). Diagnostic accuracy was similar in FT ($κ= 0.58$) and SR ($κ= 0.60$) but higher in AI-SR ($κ= 0.71$, $P < .001$). Reporting times decreased from $88 \pm 38$ s (FT) to $37 \pm 18$ s (SR) and $25 \pm 9$ s (AI-SR) ($P < .001$). Saccade counts for the radiograph field ($205 \pm 135$ (FT), $123 \pm 88$ (SR), $97 \pm 58$ (AI-SR)) and total fixation duration for the report field ($11 \pm 5$ s (FT), $5 \pm 3$ s (SR), $4 \pm 1$ s (AI-SR)) were lower with SR and AI-SR ($P < .001$ each). Novice readers shifted gaze towards the radiograph in SR, while non-novice readers maintained their focus on the radiograph. AI-SR was the preferred mode. In conclusion, SR improves efficiency by guiding visual attention toward the image, and AI-prefilled SR further enhances diagnostic accuracy and user satisfaction.

André Ferreira, Kunpeng Xie, Caroline Wilpert et al.

AI requires extensive datasets, while medical data is subject to high data protection. Anonymization is essential, but poses a challenge for some regions, such as the head, as identifying structures overlap with regions of clinical interest. Synthetic data offers a potential solution, but studies often lack rigorous evaluation of realism and utility. Therefore, we investigate to what extent synthetic data can replace real data in segmentation tasks. We employed head and neck cancer CT scans and brain glioma MRI scans from two large datasets. Synthetic data were generated using generative adversarial networks and diffusion models. We evaluated the quality of the synthetic data using MAE, MS-SSIM, Radiomics and a Visual Turing Test (VTT) performed by 5 radiologists and their usefulness in segmentation tasks using DSC. Radiomics indicates high fidelity of synthetic MRIs, but fall short in producing highly realistic CT tissue, with correlation coefficient of 0.8784 and 0.5461 for MRI and CT tumors, respectively. DSC results indicate limited utility of synthetic data: tumor segmentation achieved DSC=0.064 on CT and 0.834 on MRI, while bone segmentation a mean DSC=0.841. Relation between DSC and correlation is observed, but is limited by the complexity of the task. VTT results show synthetic CTs' utility, but with limited educational applications. Synthetic data can be used independently for the segmentation task, although limited by the complexity of the structures to segment. Advancing generative models to better tolerate heterogeneous inputs and learn subtle details is essential for enhancing their realism and expanding their application potential.