Esta página foi traduzida automaticamente e a precisão da tradução não é garantida. Por favor, consulte o versão em inglês para um texto fonte.

LLMs Improve Patient Understanding of Ultrasound Reports

12 de junho de 2026 atualizado por: Lu Wang

Large Language Model Simplification of Ultrasound Reports Improves Patient Understanding

This multicenter, patient-blinded, controlled evaluation assessed whether expert-reviewed artificial intelligence (AI)-simplified ultrasound reports improved patient- or guardian-reported understanding and reading experience compared with standard ultrasound reports. Routine ultrasound reports were completed through existing clinical processes. After completion of the routine report, participants were assigned to view either the standard report or an expert-reviewed plain-language version generated with a large language model workflow.

The simplified report was intended only as a patient-facing communication aid. It did not replace the standard clinical report and did not alter ultrasound acquisition, diagnostic interpretation, treatment decisions, follow-up, or subsequent clinical management. Patient- or guardian-reported outcomes included cognitive workload, comprehension, report perception, and reading time. Expert review assessed whether AI-generated simplified reports preserved source meaning and identified factual errors, omissions, or unsupported additions before patient presentation.

Visão geral do estudo

Descrição detalhada

Radiology and ultrasound reports are primarily written for communication among clinicians and often contain technical terminology, compressed syntax, measurements, uncertainty statements, and diagnostic language that may be difficult for patients to interpret. Patient access to reports through electronic portals may improve transparency, but access alone does not ensure comprehension. This study evaluated a bounded AI-assisted communication workflow designed to translate completed ultrasound reports into patient-facing plain language while preserving the meaning of the original clinical report.

The study was conducted at three participating centers: Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Provincial Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, and The First People's Hospital of Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture. Eligible participants were patients receiving an ultrasound report at a participating center. For participants younger than 18 years, a legal guardian provided consent, read the report, and completed the questionnaire.

Routine ultrasound reports were first completed through standard clinical processes. The study workflow began only after the routine report had been finalized. A built-in random-number function determined whether the participant or guardian viewed the standard report or an expert-reviewed AI-simplified report. Participants or guardians were not informed which presentation format they received. The standard clinical report remained the authoritative diagnostic report and the sole report used for clinical communication and care.

For the AI-simplified format, the completed routine report text was submitted to a large language model workflow. The prompt instructed the model to preserve all findings, avoid new diagnoses or recommendations, explain terminology in plain language, and maintain uncertainty expressed in the source report. Before presentation to participants or guardians, the generated simplified report was reviewed against the routine report by paired ultrasound physicians at each center. Experts corrected inaccuracies, omissions, or unsupported additions before patient exposure. The workflow did not generate orders, referrals, follow-up intervals, medication instructions, or treatment recommendations, and no model output was written back into the diagnostic report.

After reading the assigned report format, participants or guardians completed a questionnaire evaluating their immediate reading experience. Patient- or guardian-reported outcomes included cognitive workload, text comprehension, report perception, and approximate reading time. Cognitive workload included mental demand, frustration, and effort, with lower scores indicating a more favorable experience. Comprehension included clarity, readability, and comprehensibility. Report perception included helpfulness, informativeness, and trust, with higher scores indicating more favorable responses.

Expert assessment of AI-generated simplified reports included factual errors, important omissions, unsupported additions, terminology simplification, clinical usefulness, and overall quality. Paired expert ratings were resolved into consensus records for report-level safety summaries. The primary purpose of expert review was to determine whether the AI-generated patient-facing explanation preserved the source meaning and to define the residual need for human oversight before such reports are shown to patients.

The prespecified analysis population included completed evaluations with recorded center and presentation format. Outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics, between-format comparisons, and adjusted models including presentation format, age, sex, education, and center. The study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Sichuan Cancer Hospital, and written informed consent was obtained from adult participants or from legal guardians of minors.

Tipo de estudo

Intervencional

Inscrição (Estimado)

660

Estágio

  • Não aplicável

Contactos e Locais

Esta seção fornece os detalhes de contato para aqueles que conduzem o estudo e informações sobre onde este estudo está sendo realizado.

Locais de estudo

    • Sichuan
      • Chengdu, Sichuan, China, 610041
        • Sichuan Cancer Hospital

Critérios de participação

Os pesquisadores procuram pessoas que se encaixem em uma determinada descrição, chamada de critérios de elegibilidade. Alguns exemplos desses critérios são a condição geral de saúde de uma pessoa ou tratamentos anteriores.

Critérios de elegibilidade

Idades elegíveis para estudo

  • Adulto
  • Adulto mais velho

Aceita Voluntários Saudáveis

Não

Descrição

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients receiving an ultrasound report at a participating center. Adult participants able to provide written informed consent. For participants younger than 18 years, a legal guardian able to provide written informed consent, read the assigned report, and complete the questionnaire.

Participants or legal guardians able to read one assigned report presentation format and complete the study questionnaire immediately after reading.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Refusal or inability to provide written informed consent by the adult participant or legal guardian.

Inability of the participant or legal guardian to read the assigned report presentation format or complete the questionnaire.

Incomplete evaluation, including missing responses to any of the nine rating items or the reading-time item.

Missing key study information required for analysis, including participating center or assigned report presentation format.

Plano de estudo

Esta seção fornece detalhes do plano de estudo, incluindo como o estudo é projetado e o que o estudo está medindo.

Como o estudo é projetado?

Detalhes do projeto

  • Finalidade Principal: Pesquisa de serviços de saúde
  • Alocação: Randomizado
  • Modelo Intervencional: Atribuição Paralela
  • Mascaramento: Solteiro

Armas e Intervenções

Grupo de Participantes / Braço
Intervenção / Tratamento
Comparador Ativo: Standard ultrasound report
Participants or legal guardians viewed the standard ultrasound report generated through routine clinical reporting processes
Presentation of the completed routine ultrasound report to the participant or legal guardian
Experimental: Expert-reviewed AI-simplified ultrasound report
Participants or legal guardians viewed a plain-language ultrasound report generated by an AI workflow after completion of the routine report and reviewed by ultrasound physicians before presentation
Presentation of a patient-facing plain-language ultrasound report generated by an AI workflow and reviewed by ultrasound physicians before participant or guardian exposure. The intervention did not alter ultrasound acquisition, diagnostic interpretation, treatment decisions, follow-up, or clinical management

O que o estudo está medindo?

Medidas de resultados primários

Medida de resultado
Descrição da medida
Prazo
Text comprehension composite score
Prazo: Immediately after reading the assigned report
Participant- or guardian-reported text comprehension after reading the assigned ultrasound report format. The composite score was calculated as the arithmetic mean of three seven-point questionnaire items assessing clarity, readability, and comprehensibility. Higher scores indicate better comprehension.
Immediately after reading the assigned report

Medidas de resultados secundários

Medida de resultado
Descrição da medida
Prazo
Cognitive workload composite score
Prazo: Immediately after reading the assigned report
Participant- or guardian-reported cognitive workload after reading the assigned ultrasound report format. The composite score was calculated as the arithmetic mean of three seven-point items assessing mental demand, frustration, and effort. Lower scores indicate a more favorable reading experience.
Immediately after reading the assigned report
Report perception composite score
Prazo: Immediately after reading the assigned report
Participant- or guardian-reported perception of the assigned ultrasound report format. The composite score was calculated as the arithmetic mean of three seven-point items assessing helpfulness, informativeness, and trust. Higher scores indicate more favorable report perception.
Immediately after reading the assigned report
Reading time
Prazo: Immediately after reading the assigned report
Participant- or guardian-reported approximate time spent reading the assigned ultrasound report format.
Immediately after reading the assigned report

Colaboradores e Investigadores

É aqui que você encontrará pessoas e organizações envolvidas com este estudo.

Patrocinador

Datas de registro do estudo

Essas datas acompanham o progresso do registro do estudo e os envios de resumo dos resultados para ClinicalTrials.gov. Os registros do estudo e os resultados relatados são revisados ​​pela National Library of Medicine (NLM) para garantir que atendam aos padrões específicos de controle de qualidade antes de serem publicados no site público.

Datas Principais do Estudo

Início do estudo (Real)

1 de junho de 2026

Conclusão Primária (Estimado)

20 de junho de 2026

Conclusão do estudo (Estimado)

30 de junho de 2026

Datas de inscrição no estudo

Enviado pela primeira vez

9 de junho de 2026

Enviado pela primeira vez que atendeu aos critérios de CQ

12 de junho de 2026

Primeira postagem (Real)

15 de junho de 2026

Atualizações de registro de estudo

Última Atualização Postada (Real)

15 de junho de 2026

Última atualização enviada que atendeu aos critérios de controle de qualidade

12 de junho de 2026

Última verificação

1 de junho de 2026

Mais Informações

Termos relacionados a este estudo

Plano para dados de participantes individuais (IPD)

Planeja compartilhar dados de participantes individuais (IPD)?

NÃO

Descrição do plano IPD

Individual participant data will not be shared because the study involves sensitive patient-level clinical data, and the current informed consent and ethics approval do not include permission for external IPD sharing. Study results will be reported in aggregate form.

Informações sobre medicamentos e dispositivos, documentos de estudo

Estuda um medicamento regulamentado pela FDA dos EUA

Não

Estuda um produto de dispositivo regulamentado pela FDA dos EUA

Não

Essas informações foram obtidas diretamente do site clinicaltrials.gov sem nenhuma alteração. Se você tiver alguma solicitação para alterar, remover ou atualizar os detalhes do seu estudo, entre em contato com register@clinicaltrials.gov. Assim que uma alteração for implementada em clinicaltrials.gov, ela também será atualizada automaticamente em nosso site .

Se inscrever