ArticleLa Radiologia medica2023
Open issues for education in radiological research: data integrity, study reproducibility, peer-review, levels of evidence, and cross-fertilization with data scientists.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The radiologist as an independent "third party" to the patient and clinicians in the era of generative AI.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Review
- Decoding Radiomics: A Step-by-Step Guide to Machine Learning Workflow in Hand-Crafted and Deep Learning Radiomics Studies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Impact of AI on radiology: a EuroAIM/EuSoMII 2024 survey among members of the European Society of Radiology.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Translating radiological research into practice-from discovery to clinical impact.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Review
- For a paradigm shift in peer review, bold steps need to be taken.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Open peer review: pros and cons.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Risk Assessment and Cholangiocarcinoma: Diagnostic Management and Artificial Intelligence.Biology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We are currently facing extraordinary changes. A harder and harder competition in the field of science is open in each country as well as in continents and worldwide. In this context, what should we teach to young students and doctors? There is a need to look backward and return to "fundamentals", i.e. the deep characteristics that must characterize the research in every field, even in radiology. In this article, we focus on data integrity (including the "declarations" given by the authors who submit a manuscript), reproducibility of study results, and the peer-review process. In addition, we highlight the need of raising the level of evidence of radiological research from the estimation of diagnostic performance to that of diagnostic impact, therapeutic impact, patient outcome, and social impact. Finally, on the emerging topic of radiomics and artificial intelligence, the recommendation is to aim for cross-fertilization with data scientists, possibly involving them in the clinical departments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.