https://www.selleckchem.com/products/bms-911172.html Purpose To assess public preferences and perceptions regarding negative chest radiograph reports. Methods Using Amazon Mechanical Turk (Amazon Inc, Seattle, Washington), paid US English-speaking volunteers completed an 18-question survey. Participants were presented with the same two chest radiograph reports-one each in a freestyle and structured format-but randomized to one of four impression statements commonly used in our community. Participants were asked about content comprehension and confidence in the hypothetical interpreting radiologist. Results Over 15 days, 5,155 eligible participants completed the survey (of 6,363 respondents). Most reported prior chest radiography (68.9%) or any imaging (93.8%). Of those who underwent chest radiography, 77.6% reviewed their reports. Participants indicated structured reports were easier to comprehend (P less then .001) but no difference in perceived confidence in the radiologist with freestyle versus structured reports (P = .21). No differences in comprehension were noted between different impressions with either freestyle (P = .077) or structured (P = .083) reports. Participants indicated higher confidence in radiologists when structured reports indicated "no acute disease" versus "unremarkable" (P = .049). When impressions stated "no acute disease," participants indicated they would be more likely to do nothing, versus "negative chest" for which they indicated a higher likelihood of taking some action (P = .013, P = .04). Participant responses were similar for subgroups who previously underwent chest or other imaging and previously reviewed their imaging reports. Conclusion For negative chest radiographs, structured reports are better comprehended by the public and less likely to prompt unnecessary follow-up. As patients increasingly access their medical records online, radiologist reporting should consider patient needs and behavior.Temporally independent functional