Discrepancies in Interpretation of Japanese Radiology Report Expressions Between Radiologists and Referring Physicians
- 1Department of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine
Abstract
ObjectivesTo evaluate discrepancies between radiologists and referring physicians in the interpretation of diagnostic probabilities conveyed by common Japanese expressions used in radiology reports.
Materials and MethodsFifteen expressions commonly used to convey diagnostic probabilities in radiology reports were selected by five attending radiologists. An anonymous online survey was distributed to 26 radiologists and 33 referring physicians at a single institution. Participants assigned a diagnostic probability (from 0% to 100% in 10% increments) to each expression. Differences in median probabilities between radiologists and referring physicians were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Variability in interpretation was assessed using interquartile range (IQR), with IQR [≥] 30% defined as substantial variability.
ResultsAll radiologists (26/26) and 97% of referring physicians (32/33) completed the survey. Seven of the 15 expressions showed statistically significant differences in interpretation between radiologists and referring physicians: "c/w" (80% vs. 60%; p = 0.031), the Japanese equivalents of "present" (100% vs. 100%; p = 0.024), "suspect of" (80% vs. 70%; p = 0.007), "possibly" (50% vs. 70%; p < 0.001), "unlikely" (10% vs. 10%; p = 0.022), "cannot be ruled out" (25% vs. 40%; p < 0.001), and "not inconsistent with" (80% vs. 90%; p = 0.008). Substantial variability in interpretation (IQR [≥] 30%) was observed for four expressions: "cannot be ruled out" (IQR, 10%-40%), "s/o" (IQR, 60%-90%), "c/w" (IQR, 50%-90%), and "not inconsistent with" (IQR, 70%-100%).
ConclusionThis study revealed that nearly half of the Japanese expressions commonly used to convey diagnostic probabilities were interpreted differently by radiologists and referring physicians. These discrepancies highlight the need for a standardized lexicon to improve clarity and consistency in radiology reporting.
Compliance with Reporting GuidelinesThis study was conducted in accordance with the STROBE guidelines for observational studies.
Related
- Ultrasound probe disinfection practice and associated factors among radiologists and radiology residents in Ethiopia, 2025: a cross-sectional study
- Artificial Intelligence Versus Human Interpretation in Diagnostic Radiology: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy and Operational Efficiency.
- Disagreement between AI and Radiologists: Quantifying Direction and Fragility
- Seeing through experts' eyes: a foundational vision-language model trained on radiologists' gaze and reasoning
- Is Vibe Coding a 'Fire of Prometheus' for Non-Developer Clinicians, Especially Clinical Radiologists?
BibTeX
@misc{yamaguchi2026discrepancies,
title = {{Discrepancies in Interpretation of Japanese Radiology Report Expressions Between Radiologists and Referring Physicians}},
author = {T. Yamaguchi and H. Matsuo and M. Nishio and J. I. Inukai and T. Matsunaga and Y. Kojita and K. Sofue and T. Murakami},
howpublished = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.64898/2026.10.19.26364709},
url = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.19.26364709v1},
note = {CC BY-ND},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Discrepancies in Interpretation of Japanese Radiology Report Expressions Between Radiologists and Referring Physicians
AU - T. Yamaguchi
AU - H. Matsuo
AU - M. Nishio
AU - J. I. Inukai
AU - T. Matsunaga
AU - Y. Kojita
AU - K. Sofue
AU - T. Murakami
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/19
PB - medRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.10.19.26364709
UR - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.19.26364709v1
AB - ObjectivesTo evaluate discrepancies between radiologists and referring physicians in the interpretation of diagnostic probabilities conveyed by common Japanese expressions used in radiology reports. Materials and MethodsFifteen expressions commonly used to convey diagnostic probabilities in radiology reports were selected by five attending radiologists. An anonymous online survey was distributed to 26 radiologists and 33 referring physicians at a single institution. Participants assigned a diagnostic probability (from 0% to 100% in 10% increments) to each expression. Differences in median probabilities between radiologists and referring physicians were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Variability in interpretation was assessed using interquartile range (IQR), with IQR [≥] 30% defined as substantial variability. ResultsAll radiologists (26/26) and 97% of referring physicians (32/33) completed the survey. Seven of the 15 expressions showed statistically significant differences in interpretation between radiologists and referring physicians: "c/w" (80% vs. 60%; p = 0.031), the Japanese equivalents of "present" (100% vs. 100%; p = 0.024), "suspect of" (80% vs. 70%; p = 0.007), "possibly" (50% vs. 70%; p < 0.001), "unlikely" (10% vs. 10%; p = 0.022), "cannot be ruled out" (25% vs. 40%; p < 0.001), and "not inconsistent with" (80% vs. 90%; p = 0.008). Substantial variability in interpretation (IQR [≥] 30%) was observed for four expressions: "cannot be ruled out" (IQR, 10%-40%), "s/o" (IQR, 60%-90%), "c/w" (IQR, 50%-90%), and "not inconsistent with" (IQR, 70%-100%). ConclusionThis study revealed that nearly half of the Japanese expressions commonly used to convey diagnostic probabilities were interpreted differently by radiologists and referring physicians. These discrepancies highlight the need for a standardized lexicon to improve clarity and consistency in radiology reporting. Compliance with Reporting GuidelinesThis study was conducted in accordance with the STROBE guidelines for observational studies.
ER -