Autonomous Medical Evaluation for Guideline Adherence (AMEGA) is a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate large language models’ adherence to medical guidelines across 20 diagnostic scenarios spanning 13 specialties. It includes an evaluation framework and methodology to assess models’ capabilities in medical reasoning, differential diagnosis, treatment planning, and guideline adherence, using open-ended questions that mirror real-world clinical interactions. It includes 135 questions and 1337 weighted scoring elements designed to assess comprehensive medical knowledge. In tests of 17 LLMs, GPT-4 scored highest with 41.9/50, followed closely by Llama-3 70B and WizardLM-2-8x22B. For comparison, a recent medical graduate scored 25.8/50. The benchmark introduces novel content to avoid the issue of LLMs memorizing existing medical data. AMEGA’s publicly available code supports further research in AI-assisted clinical decision-making, aiming to enhance patient care by aiding clinicians in diagnosis and treatment under time constraints.

This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a commercial, fully-automated, artificial intelligence (AI) driven software tool in identifying and grading prostate lesions in prostate MRI, using histopathological findings as the reference standard, while contextualizing its performance within the framework of PI-RADS v2.1 criteria. This retrospective study analyzed 123 patients who underwent multiparametric prostate MRI followed by systematic and targeted biopsies. MRI protocols adhered to international guidelines and included T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, T1-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. The AI software tool mdprostate was integrated into the Picture Archiving and Communication System to automatically segment the prostate, calculate prostate volume, and classify lesions according to PI-RADS scores using biparametric T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging. Histopathological analysis of biopsy cores served as the reference standard. Diagnostic performance metrics including sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV), and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were calculated. mdprostate demonstrated 100 % sensitivity at a PI-RADS ≥ 2 cutoff, effectively ruling out both clinically significant and non-significant prostate cancers for lesions remaining below this threshold. For detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) using a PI-RADS ≥ 4 cutoff, mdprostate achieved a sensitivity of 85.5 % and a specificity of 63.2 %. The AUC for detecting cancers of any grade was 0.803. The performance metrics of mdprostate were comparable to those reported in two meta-analyses of PI-RADS v2.1, with no significant differences in sensitivity and specificity (p > 0.05). The evaluated AI tool demonstrated high diagnostic performance in identifying and grading prostate lesions, with results comparable to those reported in meta-analyses of expert readers using PI-RADS v2.1. Its ability to standardize evaluations and potentially reduce variability underscores its potential as a valuable adjunct in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. The high accuracy of mdprostate, particularly in ruling out prostate cancers, highlights its clinical utility by reducing workload and enhancing patient outcomes.

MRSegmentator accurately segmented 40 anatomic structures on MRI and CT across three external datasets.

To evaluate the reader’s diagnostic performance against the ground truth with and without the help of a novel content-based image retrieval system (CBIR) that retrieves images with similar CT patterns from a database of 79 different interstitial lung diseases. We evaluated three novice readers’ and three resident physicians‘ (with at least three years of experience) diagnostic performance evaluating 50 different CTs featuring 10 different patterns (e.g., honeycombing, tree-in bud, ground glass, bronchiectasis, etc.) and 24 different diseases (sarcoidosis, UIP, NSIP, Aspergillosis, COVID-19 pneumonia etc.). The participants read the cases first without assistance (and without feedback regarding correctness), and with a 2-month interval in a random order with the assistance of the novel CBIR. To invoke the CBIR, a ROI is placed into the pathologic pattern by the reader and the system retrieves diseases with similar patterns. To further narrow the differential diagnosis, the readers can consult an integrated textbook and have the possibility of selecting high-level semantic features representing clinical information (chronic, infectious, smoking status, etc.). We analyzed readers’ accuracy without and with CBIR assistance and further tested the hypothesis that the CBIR would help to improve diagnostic performance utilizing Wilcoxon signed rank test. The novice readers demonstrated an unassisted accuracy of 18/28/44%, and an assisted accuracy of 84/82/90%, respectively. The resident physicians demonstrated an unassisted accuracy of 56/56/70%, and an assisted accuracy of 94/90/96%, respectively. For each reader, as well as overall, Sign test demonstrated statistically significant (p < 0.01) difference between the unassisted and the assisted reads. For students and physicians, Chi²-test and Mann-Whitney-U test demonstrated statistically significant (p < 0.01) difference for unassisted reads and statistically insignificant (p > 0.01) difference for assisted reads. The evaluated CBIR relying on pattern analysis and featuring the option to filter the results of the CBIR by predominant characteristics of the diseases via selecting high-level semantic features helped to drastically improve novices’ and resident physicians’ accuracy in diagnosing interstitial lung diseases in CT.

Der 128. Deutsche Ärztetag (DÄT) beschloss 2024 eine Weiterentwicklung der bestehenden Musterweiterbildungsordnung (MWBO) [1]. Die durch den DÄT definierten Themen beinhalteten insbesondere eine mögliche Kürzung der Weiterbildungszeit zur Anpassung an 4-jährige Weiterbildungszeiten in anderen europäischen Ländern zwecks Gleichstellung deutscher Weiterzubildender, eine mögliche Straffung von Weiterbildungsinhalten und die Überprüfung von Zusatz- sowie von Schwerpunktweiterbildungen. Ein wesentliches Merkmal des Prozesses war der Einbezug der Meinungen der Fachgesellschaften und Berufsverbände, so auch die der Vertreter*innen der Radiologie. Darüber hinaus erfragte die Bundesärztekammer (BÄK) explizit auch die Meinung des radiologischen Nachwuchses. Article published online: 19 September 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany