Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35429129›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2022

Australian perspectives on artificial intelligence in medical imaging.

Geoffrey Currie, Tarni Nelson, Johnathan Hewis, Amanda Chandler, Kelly Spuur, Caroline Nabasenja, Cate Thomas, Janelle Wheat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

8 authors.

Geoffrey CurrieSchool of Dentistry & Medical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6180-8586
Tarni NelsonSchool of Dentistry & Medical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Port Macquarie, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3424-7592
Johnathan HewisSchool of Dentistry & Medical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Port Macquarie, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7810-5641
Amanda ChandlerSchool of Dentistry & Medical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Port Macquarie, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5963-8610
Kelly SpuurSchool of Dentistry & Medical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0285-9962
Caroline NabasenjaSchool of Dentistry & Medical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Port Macquarie, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1005-1325
Cate ThomasSchool of Dentistry & Medical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9386-0269
Janelle WheatSchool of Dentistry & Medical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7020-6018

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhile artificial intelligence (AI) and recent developments in deep learning (DL) have sparked interest in medical imaging, there has been little commentary on the impact of AI on imaging technologists. The aim of this survey was to understand the attitudes, applications and concerns among nuclear medicine and radiography professionals in Australia with regard to the rapidly emerging applications of AI.

methodsAn anonymous online survey with invitation to participate was circulated to nuclear medicine and radiography members of the Rural Alliance in Nuclear Scintigraphy and the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy. The survey invitations were sent to members via email and as a push via social media with the survey open for 10 weeks. All information collected was anonymised and there is no disclosure of personal information as it was de-identified from commencement.

resultsAmong the 102 respondents, there was a high level of acceptance of lower order tasks (e.g. patient registration, triaging and dispensing) and less acceptance of high order task automation (e.g. surgery and interpretation). There was a low priority perception for the role of AI in higher order tasks (e.g. diagnosis, interpretation and decision making) and high priority for those applications that automate complex tasks (e.g. quantitation, segmentation, reconstruction) or improve image quality (e.g. dose / noise reduction and pseudo CT for attenuation correction). Medico-legal, ethical, diversity and privacy issues posed moderate or high concern while there appeared to be no concern regarding AI being clinically useful and improving efficiency. Mild concerns included redundancy, training bias, transparency and validity.

conclusionAustralian nuclear medicine technologists and radiographers recognise important applications of AI for assisting with repetitive tasks, performing less complex tasks and enhancing the quality of outputs in medical imaging. There are concerns relating to ethical aspects of algorithm development and implementation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDeep LearningAustraliaHumansRadiographyRadionuclide Imagingartificial intelligenceconvolutional neural networkdeep learningmachine learningnuclear medicineradiography

Identifiers

PMID35429129
PMCPMC9442287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.