HeadacheCLEAR-HEADNCT07310394
LLM-Generated Lay Summaries for Brain MRI Reports
A study testing LLM-generated lay summary in people with Headache, run by University Hospital, Lille at 1 site in France.
Trial 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?"… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Headache
- What is being tested?
- LLM-generated lay summary
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 2,727 participants
- Where
- 1 siteFrance
- Study dates
- 25 Mar 2026to 30 Apr 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Participants of the COMPARE e-cohort
Who cannot join
- None
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
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.
- Conditions
- Headache
- Being tested
- LLM-generated lay summary
- Keywords
- headache, LLM, Large Language Model, MRI, lay summary
- Medical subject headings
- Headache
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
LLM-generated lay summaryOther
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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Original MRI reports | No intervention | Not described |
| LLM-generated summaries in addition to the original reports | Experimental | Not described Receives: Other: LLM-generated lay summary |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
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).
Measured: Through completion of each response, an average of 5 minutes
Secondary outcomes (3)
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.
Measured: Through completion of each response, an average of 5 minutes
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).
Measured: Through completion of each response, an average of 5 minutes
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.
Measured: Through completion of each response, an average of 5 minutes
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Dec 2025
- Study start25 Mar 2026
- Primary completion30 Apr 2026
- Study completion30 Apr 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for HeadacheStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 2,727 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, Lille
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Direction Générale de l'Offre de Soins
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Aghiles.HAMROUN, University Hospital, Lille
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07310394
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2025-3783
- Acronym
- CLEAR-HEAD
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 28 Nov 2025
- Last updated
- 13 May 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 May 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- LLM-Generated Lay Summaries for Brain MRI Reports
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07310394
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CLEAR-HEAD / 2025-3783
- Conditions
- Headache
- Keywords
- headache, LLM, Large Language Model, MRI, lay summary
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 2,727 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, LilleUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Direction Générale de l'Offre de Soins
- Study start
- 25 Mar 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Apr 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Apr 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 30 Dec 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Original MRI reports | No intervention | – |
| LLM-generated summaries in addition to the original reports | Experimental | Other: LLM-generated lay summary |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Participants of the COMPARE e-cohort
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- None
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| LLM-generated lay summaryParticipants 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. | Other | LLM-generated summaries in addition to the original reports |
Primary outcome
Objective understanding of the report
Time frame: Through completion of each response, an average of 5 minutes
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).
3 secondary outcomes
Self-reported understanding score
Time frame: Through completion of each response, an average of 5 minutes
Perceived need for professional clarification
Time frame: Through completion of each response, an average of 5 minutes
Perceived ability to explain results to a relative
Time frame: Through completion of each response, an average of 5 minutes
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 May 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Headache
Active, not recruiting
Intra-Nasal Mechanical Stimulation (INMEST) as a Potential Preventative Treatment for Migraine
Migraine
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Studio TIARA: Alessitimia ed Emicrania Cronica
Migraine, Alexithymia
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
A Study to Investigate the Safety and Efficacy of MEDI0618 Compared to Placebo in Adult Participants With Episodic Migraine
Migraine
Recruiting
Cocoa Extract for Migraine Trial
Migraine
RecruitingPhase 1
A Prospective, Open-Label Study Evaluating the Effectiveness of Gepants for Acute Treatment of Migraine in the Emergency Department
Migraine, Migraine Disease
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing LLM-generated lay summary in people with Headache, run by University Hospital, Lille at 1 site in France.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 May 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in France. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Objective understanding of the report (time frame: Through completion of each response, an average of 5 minutes). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 13 May 2026.