Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36292270›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022

The Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in Digital Radiology in the Scientific Literature: A Narrative Review of Reviews.

Daniele Giansanti

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. QHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. An Umbrella Review of the Fusion of fMRI and AI in Autism.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  20. 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

1 author.

Daniele GiansantiCentro TISP, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00161 Roma, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Today, there is growing interest in artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of digital radiology (DR). This is also due to the push that has been applied in this sector due to the pandemic. Many studies are devoted to the challenges of integration in the health domain. One of the most important challenges is that of regulations. This study conducted a narrative review of reviews on the international approach to the regulation of AI in DR. The design of the study was based on: (I) An overview on Scopus and Pubmed (II) A qualification and eligibility process based on a standardized checklist and a scoring system. The results have highlighted an international approach to the regulation of these systems classified as "software as medical devices (SaMD)" arranged into: ethical issues, international regulatory framework, and bottlenecks of the legal issues. Several recommendations emerge from the analysis. They are all based on fundamental pillars: (a) The need to overcome a differentiated approach between countries. (b) The need for greater transparency and publicity of information both for SaMDs as a whole and for the algorithms and test patterns. (c) The need for an interdisciplinary approach that avoids bias (including demographic) in algorithms and test data. (d) The need to reduce some limits/gaps of the scientific literature production that do not cover the international approach.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedigital radiologymedical devicesregulation

Identifiers

PMID36292270
PMCPMC9601605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.