RADAR: the work that begins after the report is signed
RADAR analyzes signed reports and flags critical findings to communicate, inconsistencies for peer review, recommendations to follow up and discrepancies between the report, billing and authorization that create documentary claim-denial risk. Each flag opens a human review task; the system does not decide diagnosis, correction or payment on its own.
From critical findings to billing, in the same post-imaging flow
A critical finding needs more than a conclusion.
Find reports with findings from your critical-results list. Check whether communication is needed, and track contact and receipt as separate steps.
Example: Intracranial hemorrhage. Report conclusion: “Acute subdural hematoma.”
Next action: Check finding communication. In this example, there is no contact recorded in the session yet. This does not prove that no communication took place in another system.
A reason for review, not just a flag.
Compare technique, measurements, laterality, findings and conclusion. Locate possible inconsistencies and the passages that support referral for peer review.
Example: Conflicting laterality. Description: “Lesion in the right kidney.” Conclusion: “Lesion in the left kidney.”
Next action: Refer for peer review. Check both statements before correcting. Text analysis does not determine which side is correct.
The recommendation stays visible to the team.
Find recommendations for follow-up and further investigation in the report. Identify what needs review and follow-up, with the source passage available.
Example: Follow-up recommended in the report. Recommendation as written: “Follow-up CT in 3 months is suggested.”
Next action: Review the follow-up. The interval comes from the document in this example. The team evaluates the recommendation in the clinical context.
Does the report support the billed procedure?
Compare the report, billing and authorization. Check differences in procedure, contrast and laterality before billing or during payer review.
Example: Contrast: report versus billing. Report technique: “Exam performed without intravenous contrast.” Procedure billed: “Chest CT with intravenous contrast.”
Next action: Review before billing. Documentary claim-denial risk. Check the administration record and reconcile the documents, with no automatic denial or approval.
Workflow documents and relationships, not the image
| Input | What RADAR looks for | What it does not decide |
|---|---|---|
| Signed report | Documented criticality, internal inconsistencies, recommendations and elements that support billing. | Whether the image interpretation is correct. |
| Billing | Procedure, contrast, laterality and other fields that may diverge from the report. | Whether the claim should be paid or denied. |
| Authorization | Documentary consistency between the authorized procedure and what was performed and described. | Contractual eligibility beyond the available documents. |
| Institutional protocol | Configured list of critical findings, deadlines, recipients and escalation rules. | Replacing the institution's clinical and administrative policy. |
RADAR points to where to review
The aim is to reduce the work of manually searching for cases that deserve attention after signature. The system preserves the excerpt that generated the flag and presents the reason for triage. The team checks the case in its original context before communicating, correcting, following up or billing.
Questions and answers
What is Laudos.AI RADAR?
RADAR analyzes signed reports and flags critical findings to communicate, inconsistencies for peer review, recommendations to follow up and discrepancies between the report, billing and authorization that create documentary claim-denial risk. The final action remains human.
Does RADAR make diagnoses?
No. RADAR works on documents and data from the post-imaging flow. It does not interpret the image, does not replace the radiologist and does not automatically decide payment, claim denial or clinical management.
Does RADAR replace physician peer review?
No. It locates textual inconsistencies and shows the excerpts that justify review. The reviewing physician decides whether a discrepancy exists, its relevance and any correction.
How does RADAR help prevent claim denials?
It compares what is documented in the report with billing and authorization and highlights differences in procedure, contrast and laterality for checking before billing or during an audit.
How does recommendation follow-up work?
RADAR locates follow-up or workup recommendations in the report, preserves the source excerpt and places the case in a queue for the team to check and follow up.
Does RADAR communicate critical findings on its own?
The product can organize the institutional flow of communication, confirmation and escalation, depending on the deployment. The critical-findings list, recipients, deadlines and contingency are defined by the institution.