Back to all papers

Large Language Model-Generated Differential Diagnoses in Radiology Education: Comparison with a Standard Casebook.

June 27, 2026pubmed logopapers

Authors

Chapellier P,Ferrari J,Saliba T,Jeltsch P,Mohamed M,Jankovski S,Ilanjian G,Epis M,Pansini V,Bragaglia F,Agostinelli A,Caringal K,Lalov L,Rotzinger DC,Fahrni G

Affiliations (3)

  • Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital, University of Lausanne, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland.
  • ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Università Degli Studi di Milano, 20162 Milano, Italy.
  • Faculty of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored for radiology education, but their role in differential diagnosis learning remains under-investigated. This study evaluates the perceived usefulness of LLM-generated differential diagnoses compared with a standard radiology casebook. <b>Methods</b>: In this multi-center study, radiology trainees at junior (years 1-2) and advanced (years 3-5) levels evaluated 225 cases from a gold-standard casebook spanning nine subspecialties. Participants ranked the usefulness of their personal clinical experience, the casebook, and LLM teaching, and rated the LLM output using a five-point Likert scale across Clarity, Trust, Differential Usefulness, and Diagnostic Usefulness. <b>Results</b>: Thirteen trainees (4 junior, 9 advanced) completed 2425 evaluations. Overall, the casebook was rated most useful (mean rank 1.7 ± 0.2), followed by LLM teaching (1.8 ± 0.3) and personal experience (2.4 ± 0.2; <i>p</i> = 0.023), with no significant difference between LLM and Textbook (<i>p</i> = 0.438). Junior trainees favored LLM teaching more than advanced trainees (first-rank 66.6% vs. 22.1%; <i>p</i> = 0.037). Across subspecialties, the casebook consistently ranked highest, with LLM slightly lower and experience lowest. LLM teaching received high ratings for Clarity (4.4 ± 0.3), Trust (4.3 ± 0.3), Differential Usefulness (4.3 ± 0.4), and Diagnostic Usefulness (4.2 ± 0.4), with no statistically significant difference between domains (<i>p</i> = 0.149). <b>Conclusions</b>: LLM-generated differential diagnoses are clear, trustworthy, and perceived as highly useful for education, nearing the perceived value of a standard casebook, especially for junior trainees. While textbooks remain essential, LLMs hold promise as supplementary tools, but caution is needed due to potential inaccuracies and their inability to replicate image-based teaching.

Topics

Journal Article

Ready to Sharpen Your Edge?

Subscribe to join 11k+ peers who rely on RadAI Slice. Get the essential weekly briefing that empowers you to navigate the future of radiology.

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.