CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT07310394CLEAR-HEADUpdated May 13, 2026

LLM-Generated Lay Summaries for Brain MRI Reports

An interventional study of LLM-generated lay summary in Headache, sponsored by University Hospital, Lille. Completed at 1 site in France. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-05-13.

Sponsored by University Hospital, Lille · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
2,727
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if a summary written by artificial intelligence (AI) helps adults understand brain MRI reports for headaches. The main question it aims to answer is: "Does adding a simple summary help readers correctly understand if a cause for the headache was found in the report?" Researchers will compare standard MRI reports to reports that include an AI-generated explanation to see if the extra summary improves understanding.

Participants will:

Read 6 fictional brain MRI reports online. Answer questions to check if they understood the results. Rate their satisfaction and if they feel they would need to ask a doctor for help.

Read the detailed description

Background Headaches account for approximately 2% to 4% of emergency department visits, representing about 450,000 consultations annually in France. While 95% of these cases are benign primary headaches, identifying secondary causes requiring urgent management is critical, often leading to increased use of neuroimaging such as MRI. However, radiology reports often contain complex medical jargon that can be difficult for patients and non-specialist physicians to understand, potentially causing confusion or anxiety. Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated the potential to simplify complex medical text. While commercial models exist, open-weights models (which can be deployed locally to ensure data security) offer a promising avenue for clinical integration. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of an AI-generated plain-language summary in improving patient understanding of brain MRI reports.

Study Design This is a randomized, controlled, single-blind trial nested within the COMPARE e-cohort. The study uses a parallel-group design with a 1:1 allocation ratio. The entire study is conducted remotely via secure online forms.

Participants The study recruits adult volunteers already enrolled in the COMPARE e-cohort. Participants must have sufficient proficiency in written French to read the reports and complete the questionnaires. No specific medical condition is required for inclusion, as the study uses fictional case scenarios.

Intervention and Procedures Participants are randomized to one of two groups via a minimization procedure balancing history of brain MRI and known neurological pathology. Each participant is asked to read six fictional brain MRI reports simulating common emergency headache scenarios. The six reports cover three clinical situations: two with normal results, two with incidental findings not explaining the headache, and two with abnormalities explaining the headache. In the experimental group, participants receive the standard MRI report enriched with a structured summary paragraph generated by an open-weights LLM, inserted under the section Synthesis for the patient and non-radiologist physician. In the control group, participants receive the standard MRI report in its native version without the AI-generated summary.

Outcome Measures Immediately after reading each report, participants complete a standardized questionnaire. The primary outcome is the comprehension of the report, measured by the accuracy of the response to the binary question: Is a probable explanation for the headache found in this report? Secondary outcomes include participant satisfaction measured on a Likert scale, perceived need for professional clarification, perceived ability to explain results to a relative, and projected anxiety levels.

Statistical Analysis The primary analysis will compare the proportion of correct responses between groups using a mixed logistic regression model. This model will include the intervention group as a fixed effect and account for crossed random effects (participant and report) to manage intra-individual correlation and variability between clinical cases. The sample size is calculated to be 412 participants (206 per group) to detect a 10% difference in understanding with 95% power.

02

Conditions studied

  • Headache

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • headache
  • LLM
  • Large Language Model
  • MRI
  • lay summary
03

In context

Headache

1,226 studies on the registry are indexed under Headache; 203 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 2,727 is above the median of 60 across 919 interventional studies indexed under Headache.

Browse Headache studies →

Lead sponsor

University Hospital, Lille is the lead sponsor of 625 studies on the registry; 141 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Participants of the COMPARE e-cohort

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • None
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
2,727 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • No intervention
    Original MRI reports
  • Experimental
    LLM-generated summaries in addition to the original reports

    Other: LLM-generated lay summary

Interventions

  • OtherLLM-generated lay summary

    Participants assigned to this group read fictional brain MRI reports that include an additional summary paragraph generated by an artificial intelligence tool. Specifically, an open-weights Large Language Model (LLM) with fewer than 100 billion parameters is used, hosted locally on a secure server to ensure data privacy. This model generates a short synthesis designed to be clear and structured for non-medical readers. This summary is inserted into the report under the heading Synthesis intended for the patient and non-radiologist physician. The intervention consists solely of this added text; the standard medical content of the report remains unchanged.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Objective understanding of the report

    Assessment of the participant's ability to correctly understand the medical findings. After reading each of the six fictional brain MRI reports, participants answer the binary question: "Is a probable explanation for the headache found in this report?" (Yes/No). The outcome is calculated as the proportion of correct responses compared to the ground truth of the specific clinical scenario (normal, incidental finding, or explanatory abnormality).

    Time frame: Through completion of each response, an average of 5 minutes

Secondary outcomes

  1. Self-reported understanding score

    Participants rate the the clarity of the MRI report using a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 to 5), where higher scores indicate higher satisfaction.

    Time frame: Through completion of each response, an average of 5 minutes

  2. Perceived need for professional clarification

    Participants respond to a binary question asking if they would feel the need to contact a healthcare professional to better understand the report: "Would you like to ask a healthcare professional questions to better understand this report?" (Yes/No).

    Time frame: Through completion of each response, an average of 5 minutes

  3. Perceived ability to explain results to a relative

    Participants rate their perceived ability to rephrase and explain the medical results to a close relative using a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 to 5), where higher scores indicate a higher perceived capability.

    Time frame: Through completion of each response, an average of 5 minutes

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Lille University Hospital
    Lille, 59000, France
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on May 13, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07310394
Lead sponsor
University Hospital, Lille
Collaborators
Direction Générale de l'Offre de Soins
Responsible party
Aghiles.HAMROUN (Head of the Include Health Data Warehouse, Lille university Hospital, University Hospital, Lille) — Principal investigator
First posted
Dec 30, 2025
Start date
Mar 25, 2026
Primary completion
Apr 30, 2026
Completion
Apr 30, 2026
Last update
May 13, 2026

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in May 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion