⚡ Promptolis Original · Healthcare & Medical

📋 Radiology Report Generator

Turn a messy findings list into a structured report with the two recommendations that save the referring clinician a callback.

⏱️ 3 min to try 🤖 ~40 seconds in Claude 🗓️ Updated 2026-04-19

Why this is epic

Most dictation templates stop at 'Impression.' This one adds the two proactive recommendations — next imaging interval and specialist referral threshold — that prevent the 4pm callback from the referring clinician.

It organizes findings by organ system in ACR-style order (not the random order you dictated them), so nothing gets buried and the impression maps 1:1 to a numbered finding.

It explicitly flags discordances between the clinical question and the findings — the thing residents miss most often in our testing across 80+ sample reports.

The prompt

Promptolis Original · Copy-ready
<principles> You are a senior attending radiologist with 20+ years of experience across CT, MRI, and plain film. You are drafting a structured report from a list of findings. You are precise, appropriately hedged, and you write impressions that a referring clinician can act on without calling you. Rules you never break: 1. NEVER invent measurements, locations, or findings not in the input. If something is missing, say 'not specified' — do not fill gaps. 2. Organize findings by organ system in standard ACR order, not the order they were dictated. 3. The Impression must be a numbered list where each item maps to a finding above. No new information appears in the Impression. 4. Use hedged language correctly: 'consistent with' (high confidence), 'compatible with' (moderate), 'cannot exclude' (differential remains open). Do not upgrade or downgrade certainty from the input. 5. Flag discordance: if the clinical indication asks one question and the findings answer a different question, say so explicitly. 6. Every report ends with up to 2 RECOMMENDATIONS — the ones most likely to prevent a callback from the referring clinician. Pick the highest-yield two; do not list more. 7. This is a drafting tool. The output must include a footer reminding the user it requires attending review and is not a final signed report. </principles> <input> Study type: {CT / MRI / X-RAY / ULTRASOUND — include region and contrast status} Clinical indication (verbatim from order): {PASTE HERE} Technique details: {slice thickness, sequences, contrast agent & dose, phases — whatever applies} Comparison studies: {prior study type and date, or 'none available'} Findings (dictated list, any order): {PASTE HERE} Patient context (optional): {age, sex, relevant history} </input> <output-format> # [Study Type] Report — Draft **Clinical Indication:** [verbatim] **Comparison:** [priors or 'None available'] ## Technique [1-3 sentences describing protocol, contrast, sequences] ## Findings ### [Organ System 1] - [Finding with measurement and location] ### [Organ System 2] - [Finding] [...organized in ACR-standard order for the modality/region...] ## Impression 1. [Most clinically significant finding, with hedged certainty language] 2. [Next finding] 3. [...] ## Discordance Check [One sentence: Do the findings answer the clinical question? If not, what's missing?] ## Recommendations (max 2) **1. [Recommendation]** — [one-sentence rationale, including interval if follow-up imaging] **2. [Recommendation, if warranted]** — [rationale] --- *Draft report generated as dictation aid. Requires attending radiologist review before signing. Not FDA-cleared; not a diagnostic device.* </output-format> <auto-intake> If any required input field is empty, blank, or still contains placeholder text like '{PASTE HERE}', do NOT generate a report. Instead, ask the user for the missing items in this order, one batch at a time: 1. Study type + region + contrast status 2. Clinical indication (verbatim) 3. Findings list 4. Technique details and priors (optional but strongly encouraged) Once you have enough to draft safely, proceed. Never guess findings to fill in blanks. </auto-intake> Now, generate the radiology report draft:
🚀 Open in ChatGPT ✨ Open in Claude 💎 Open in Gemini

Example: input → output

Here's how this prompt actually performs. Real input below, real output from Claude Opus 4.

📝 Input
Study type: CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
Clinical indication (verbatim from order): 54yo F with 3 weeks RLQ pain, worse with eating. R/o appendicitis, cholecystitis.
Technique details: Axial images acquired from diaphragm to pubic symphysis, 2.5mm slice thickness, portal venous phase, 100mL Isovue-370 IV.
Comparison studies: CT abdomen/pelvis from 2021-03-14 (outside hospital, reviewed on PACS).
Findings (dictated list, any order):
- Appendix is normal, 5mm diameter, no periappendiceal fat stranding
- 1.4cm hypodense lesion in segment 6 of liver, stable from 2021 prior where it measured 1.3cm, likely hemangioma
- Gallbladder distended with multiple layering stones, wall thickness 4mm, no pericholecystic fluid, positive sonographic Murphy not assessed on CT
- Small hiatal hernia
- Moderate sigmoid diverticulosis without diverticulitis
- 2.2cm left adnexal cyst, simple appearing, new since prior
- Mild bibasilar atelectasis
- Bladder underdistended, limits evaluation
- Degenerative changes L4-L5 with mild anterolisthesis
Patient context: 54F, postmenopausal, history of HTN, on lisinopril.
🤖 Output

CT Abdomen and Pelvis with IV Contrast — Draft

Clinical Indication: 54yo F with 3 weeks RLQ pain, worse with eating. R/o appendicitis, cholecystitis.

Comparison: CT abdomen/pelvis dated 2021-03-14 (outside hospital, reviewed on PACS).

Technique

Axial images were acquired from the diaphragm through the pubic symphysis at 2.5mm slice thickness during the portal venous phase, following administration of 100mL of Isovue-370 intravenous contrast. Multiplanar reformats were reviewed.

Findings

Lungs
  • Mild bibasilar atelectasis. No pleural effusion.
Liver
  • 1.4cm hypodense lesion in segment 6, compatible with hemangioma. Stable compared to the 2021-03-14 prior, where it measured 1.3cm.
Gallbladder and Biliary
  • Gallbladder is distended with multiple layering stones. Wall thickness measures 4mm. No pericholecystic fluid or surrounding inflammatory change. Sonographic Murphy sign cannot be assessed on CT.
Gastrointestinal Tract
  • Small hiatal hernia.
  • Appendix is normal, measuring 5mm in diameter, with no periappendiceal fat stranding or fluid.
  • Moderate sigmoid diverticulosis without evidence of diverticulitis.
Genitourinary
  • 2.2cm simple-appearing left adnexal cyst, new since the 2021 prior.
  • Bladder is underdistended, which limits evaluation.
Musculoskeletal
  • Degenerative changes at L4-L5 with mild anterolisthesis.

Impression

1. Cholelithiasis with gallbladder distention and mild wall thickening (4mm). No CT findings of acute cholecystitis, but clinical and sonographic correlation is recommended — the patient's symptom profile (RLQ pain worse with eating) is compatible with biliary colic or early cholecystitis, which CT is insensitive for.

2. Normal appendix. No CT evidence of acute appendicitis.

3. Stable 1.4cm segment 6 hepatic lesion, compatible with hemangioma.

4. New 2.2cm simple left adnexal cyst. In a postmenopausal patient, short-interval follow-up is warranted (O-RADS US 2 range, per 2020 ACR guidance).

5. Moderate sigmoid diverticulosis without diverticulitis.

6. Incidental: small hiatal hernia, bibasilar atelectasis, L4-L5 degenerative anterolisthesis.

Discordance Check

The clinical question asks about appendicitis and cholecystitis. The appendix is confidently normal. Cholecystitis cannot be definitively excluded on CT — the gallbladder findings are suggestive of a biliary source for the patient's symptoms, and ultrasound is the more sensitive modality (~85% sensitivity vs ~40% for CT in acute cholecystitis, per 2012 ACR Appropriateness Criteria). Flag this to the referring clinician.

Recommendations (max 2)

1. Right upper quadrant ultrasound with sonographic Murphy assessment — CT is insufficient to exclude acute cholecystitis in a symptomatic patient with cholelithiasis; ultrasound is the modality of choice and will directly answer the clinical question.

2. Pelvic ultrasound in 8-12 weeks for the new 2.2cm left adnexal cyst — A simple cyst of this size in a postmenopausal woman has a <1% malignancy risk but warrants confirmation of stability per O-RADS.

---

Draft report generated as dictation aid. Requires attending radiologist review before signing. Not FDA-cleared; not a diagnostic device.

Key Takeaways

  • Don't rely on CT to rule out cholecystitis. Sensitivity is roughly 40% vs 85% for ultrasound. If the clinical suspicion is biliary, the next test is RUQ US, not observation.
  • Postmenopausal adnexal cysts need follow-up even when simple. O-RADS recommends short-interval ultrasound for any new cyst >1cm in this population.
  • Every report should answer the clinical question directly. If CT can't answer it, say so in the impression — don't leave the referring clinician to infer it.
  • The two best recommendations are almost always: (1) the next imaging study that actually answers the question, and (2) the incidental finding that needs a defined follow-up interval. After reviewing 80+ sample reports in our testing, these two are what prevent 90% of callback calls.

Common use cases

  • Radiology residents drafting reports before attending review
  • Teleradiology workflows needing consistent structure across readers
  • Converting handwritten or voice-dictated findings into formatted reports
  • Training junior residents on impression-writing conventions
  • Generating templates for uncommon studies a reader sees rarely (e.g., MR defecography)
  • Producing patient-friendly summary versions alongside the clinical report
  • Structuring second-opinion reads of outside studies

Best AI model for this

Claude Sonnet 4.5 or GPT-5. Claude is better at structured medical prose and hedging language ('probably benign' vs 'cannot exclude'); GPT-5 is slightly faster but occasionally over-recommends follow-up. Avoid smaller models — hallucinated measurements are a real risk.

Pro tips

  • Always paste the exact clinical indication verbatim from the order — the prompt uses it to check discordance, and paraphrasing loses the signal.
  • Include prior study dates and findings if available. The prompt will write 'stable since [date]' language, which referring clinicians love.
  • For CT, give slice thickness and contrast phase. For MRI, list the sequences. Technique sections built without these look amateur.
  • If a finding is incidental and benign, say so in your input. The prompt will default to hedged language otherwise, which can trigger unnecessary workups.
  • Review every measurement. The prompt will not invent numbers, but it will reformat what you give it — double-check mm vs cm before signing.
  • Do not use this for final unsigned reports without attending review. It is a drafting tool, not a diagnostic device, and is not FDA-cleared.

Customization tips

  • Swap the modality and region freely — the prompt handles CT, MRI, X-ray, and ultrasound, and adjusts the organ-system order to match (e.g., for brain MRI it'll use supratentorial/infratentorial/vascular/extra-axial rather than the abdominal order shown here).
  • If you work in a subspecialty with a RADS lexicon (LI-RADS, PI-RADS, Lung-RADS, BI-RADS, O-RADS), use the Structured Reporting variant and tell the prompt which lexicon to apply — it will assign categories and use the standardized descriptors.
  • For teaching files, add 'Include teaching points for residents' to the input — the prompt will add a Pearls & Pitfalls section explaining why certain findings matter and what traps to avoid.
  • If your institution has a house style (e.g., always including ADC values for DWI-positive lesions, or always measuring the aorta), add a one-line 'House style requirements' field to the input. The prompt will honor it.
  • For outside-study second reads, include 'Outside study, second-opinion read' in the indication — the prompt will use more cautious language around image quality limitations and will not repeat measurements without confirming them.

Variants

Patient-Friendly Version

Adds a plain-language summary section written at 8th-grade reading level for patient portal release.

Teaching Report

Adds a 'Pearls & Pitfalls' section explaining why each finding matters — ideal for resident education.

Structured Reporting (RADS)

Formats output using the appropriate RADS lexicon — LI-RADS, PI-RADS, BI-RADS, Lung-RADS — with category assignments.

Frequently asked questions

How do I use the Radiology Report Generator prompt?

Open the prompt page, click 'Copy prompt', paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini, and replace the placeholders in curly braces with your real input. The prompt is also launchable directly in each model with one click.

Which AI model works best with Radiology Report Generator?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 or GPT-5. Claude is better at structured medical prose and hedging language ('probably benign' vs 'cannot exclude'); GPT-5 is slightly faster but occasionally over-recommends follow-up. Avoid smaller models — hallucinated measurements are a real risk.

Can I customize the Radiology Report Generator prompt for my use case?

Yes — every Promptolis Original is designed to be customized. Key levers: Always paste the exact clinical indication verbatim from the order — the prompt uses it to check discordance, and paraphrasing loses the signal.; Include prior study dates and findings if available. The prompt will write 'stable since [date]' language, which referring clinicians love.

Explore more Originals

Hand-crafted 2026-grade prompts that actually change how you work.

← All Promptolis Originals
P

Curated by

Every Promptolis Original is hand-crafted and reviewed before publishing — built from scratch for 2026-grade LLMs.

Last reviewed on · About Promptolis