Back

RadKev: An Open-Weight Decision Model for Radiology

Ram, U.; Zhang, R.

2026-10-13 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.10.07.26364991 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Many radiology decisions, such as whether a report describes a finding or how urgently a study should be read, are choices among a fixed set of answers. Decision models return a probability for each permitted answer in one step, without generating text, and an open-weight model can run within a hospital so that patient data stay local. No decision model has yet been specialized for radiology and compared with large language models (LLMs). Methods: We fine-tuned the general-purpose decision models Kev-27B (Qwen3.8-27B backbone) and Kev-9B on 36,109 records from public radiology datasets to obtain RadKev-27B and RadKev-9B, and compared them with the Kev models, the hosted decision models Jev and OpenAI Decisions, and the LLM Qwen3.8-27B, on 14,142 held-out questions in fifteen tasks (report reading, case diagnosis and classification, radiological knowledge). The prespecified primary outcome was task-averaged accuracy relative to Kev-27B. Results: RadKev-27B exceeded Kev-27B by 4.9 percentage points (95% CI 3.8 to 6.2), with the largest gain in report error detection (22.6 points); RadKev-9B exceeded Kev-9B by 6.9 points (5.5 to 8.4) and did not differ detectably from Kev-27B, a model three times its size. RadKev-27B was more accurate than the hosted decision models Jev (3.0 points, 1.7 to 4.4) and OpenAI Decisions (4.8, 3.2 to 6.4), than Qwen3.8-27B without reasoning (4.7, 3.4 to 6.0) and with reasoning (2.8 points, 1.0 to 4.6) on 1,675 questions, at 132-fold lower latency (128 ms vs 16.9 s per question). At an error rate of 5%, RadKev-27B could answer 90.5% of questions and Kev-27B 76.4%. Conclusions: RadKev-27B was more accurate than two hosted decision models and an LLM of the same size, with or without reasoning, at a fraction of the latency of reasoning, and can be deployed within an institution for categorical radiology decisions after validation on local data.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.