Adapted Foundation Models for Breast MRI Triaging in Contrast-Enhanced and Non-Contrast Enhanced Protocols

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has high sensitivity for breast cancer detection, but interpretation is time-consuming. Artificial intelligence may aid in pre-screening. Purpose: To evaluate the DINOv2-based Medical Slice Transformer (MST) for ruling out significant findings (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] >=4) in contrast-enhanced and non-contrast-enhanced abbreviated breast MRI. Materials and Methods: This institutional review board approved retrospective study included 1,847 single-breast MRI examinations (377 BI-RADS >=4) from an in-house dataset and 924 from an external validation dataset (Duke). Four abbreviated protocols were tested: T1-weighted early subtraction (T1sub), diffusion-weighted imaging with b=1500 s/mm2 (DWI1500), DWI1500+T2-weighted (T2w), and T1sub+T2w. Performance was assessed at 90%, 95%, and 97.5% sensitivity using five-fold cross-validation and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis. AUC differences were compared with the DeLong test. False negatives were characterized, and attention maps of true positives were rated in the external dataset. Results: A total of 1,448 female patients (mean age, 49 +/- 12 years) were included. T1sub+T2w achieved an AUC of 0.77 +/- 0.04; DWI1500+T2w, 0.74 +/- 0.04 (p=0.15). At 97.5% sensitivity, T1sub+T2w had the highest specificity (19% +/- 7%), followed by DWI1500+T2w (17% +/- 11%). Missed lesions had a mean diameter <10 mm at 95% and 97.5% thresholds for both T1sub and DWI1500, predominantly non-mass enhancements. External validation yielded an AUC of 0.77, with 88% of attention maps rated good or moderate. Conclusion: At 97.5% sensitivity, the MST framework correctly triaged cases without BI-RADS >=4, achieving 19% specificity for contrast-enhanced and 17% for non-contrast-enhanced MRI. Further research is warranted before clinical implementation.

Agentic large language models improve retrieval-based radiology question answering

Clinical decision-making in radiology increasingly benefits from artificial intelligence (AI), particularly through large language models (LLMs). However, traditional retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems for radiology question answering (QA) typically rely on single-step retrieval, limiting their ability to handle complex clinical reasoning tasks. Here we propose an agentic RAG framework enabling LLMs to autonomously decompose radiology questions, iteratively retrieve targeted clinical evidence from Radiopaedia, and dynamically synthesize evidence-based responses. We evaluated 24 LLMs spanning diverse architectures, parameter scales (0.5B to >670B), and training paradigms (general-purpose, reasoning-optimized, clinically fine-tuned), using 104 expert-curated radiology questions from previously established RSNA-RadioQA and ExtendedQA datasets. Agentic retrieval significantly improved mean diagnostic accuracy over zero-shot prompting (73% vs. 64%; P<0.001) and conventional online RAG (73% vs. 68%; P<0.001). The greatest gains occurred in mid-sized models (e.g., Mistral Large improved from 72% to 81%) and small-scale models (e.g., Qwen 2.5-7B improved from 55% to 71%), while very large models (>200B parameters) demonstrated minimal changes (<2% improvement). Additionally, agentic retrieval reduced hallucinations (mean 9.4%) and retrieved clinically relevant context in 46% of cases, substantially aiding factual grounding. Even clinically fine-tuned models exhibited meaningful improvements (e.g., MedGemma-27B improved from 71% to 81%), indicating complementary roles of retrieval and fine-tuning. These results highlight the potential of agentic frameworks to enhance factuality and diagnostic accuracy in radiology QA, particularly among mid-sized LLMs, warranting future studies to validate their clinical utility.

Perceptual Implications of Automatic Anonymization in Pathological Speech

Automatic anonymization techniques are essential for ethical sharing of pathological speech data, yet their perceptual consequences remain understudied. This study presents the first comprehensive human-centered analysis of anonymized pathological speech, using a structured perceptual protocol involving ten native and non-native German listeners with diverse linguistic, clinical, and technical backgrounds. Listeners evaluated anonymized-original utterance pairs from 180 speakers spanning Cleft Lip and Palate, Dysarthria, Dysglossia, Dysphonia, and age-matched healthy controls. Speech was anonymized using state-of-the-art automatic methods (equal error rates in the range of 30-40%). Listeners completed Turing-style discrimination and quality rating tasks under zero-shot (single-exposure) and few-shot (repeated-exposure) conditions. Discrimination accuracy was high overall (91% zero-shot; 93% few-shot), but varied by disorder (repeated-measures ANOVA: p=0.007), ranging from 96% (Dysarthria) to 86% (Dysphonia). Anonymization consistently reduced perceived quality (from 83% to 59%, p<0.001), with pathology-specific degradation patterns (one-way ANOVA: p=0.005). Native listeners rated original speech slightly higher than non-native listeners (Delta=4%, p=0.199), but this difference nearly disappeared after anonymization (Delta=1%, p=0.724). No significant gender-based bias was observed. Critically, human perceptual outcomes did not correlate with automatic privacy or clinical utility metrics. These results underscore the need for listener-informed, disorder- and context-specific anonymization strategies that preserve privacy while maintaining interpretability, communicative functions, and diagnostic utility, especially for vulnerable populations such as children.