Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34545445›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2022

Stakeholders' perspectives on the future of artificial intelligence in radiology: a scoping review.

Ling Yang, Ioana Cezara Ene, Reza Arabi Belaghi, David Koff, Nina Stein, Pasqualina Lina Santaguida

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: A Leadership Survey.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ling YangMcMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Ioana Cezara EneMcMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Reza Arabi BelaghiUniversity of Tabriz, 29 Bahman Boulevard, Tabriz, East Azerbaijan Province, Iran.
David KoffDepartment of Radiology, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Nina SteinMcMaster Children's Hospital, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Pasqualina Lina SantaguidaMcMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada. santag@mcmaster.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesArtificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to impact clinical practice and healthcare delivery. AI is of particular significance in radiology due to its use in automatic analysis of image characteristics. This scoping review examines stakeholder perspectives on AI use in radiology, the benefits, risks, and challenges to its integration.

methodsA search was conducted from 1960 to November 2019 in EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and grey literature. Publications reflecting stakeholder attitudes toward AI were included with no restrictions.

resultsCommentaries (n = 32), surveys (n = 13), presentation abstracts (n = 8), narrative reviews (n = 8), and a social media study (n = 1) were included from 62 eligible publications. These represent the views of radiologists, surgeons, medical students, patients, computer scientists, and the general public. Seven themes were identified (predicted impact, potential replacement, trust in AI, knowledge of AI, education, economic considerations, and medicolegal implications). Stakeholders anticipate a significant impact on radiology, though replacement of radiologists is unlikely in the near future. Knowledge of AI is limited for non-computer scientists and further education is desired. Many expressed the need for collaboration between radiologists and AI specialists to successfully improve patient care.

conclusionsStakeholder views generally suggest that AI can improve the practice of radiology and consider the replacement of radiologists unlikely. Most stakeholders identified the need for education and training on AI, as well as collaborative efforts to improve AI implementation. Further research is needed to gain perspectives from non-Western countries, non-radiologist stakeholders, on economic considerations, and medicolegal implications. KEY POINTS: Stakeholders generally expressed that AI alone cannot be used to replace radiologists. The scope of practice is expected to shift with AI use affecting areas from image interpretation to patient care. Patients and the general public do not know how to address potential errors made by AI systems while radiologists believe that they should be "in-the-loop" in terms of responsibility. Ethical accountability strategies must be developed across governance levels. Students, residents, and radiologists believe that there is a lack in AI education during medical school and residency. The radiology community should work with IT specialists to ensure that AI technology benefits their work and centres patients.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceRadiologyForecastingHumansRadiographyRadiologistsArtificial intelligenceAttitudeEducationEthicsRadiology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.