Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38251899›Full record

ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2024

Developing, Purchasing, Implementing and Monitoring AI Tools in Radiology: Practical Considerations. A Multi-Society Statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, RANZCR and RSNA.

Adrian P Brady, Bibb Allen, Jaron Chong, Elmar Kotter, Nina Kottler, John Mongan, Lauren Oakden-Rayner, Daniel Pinto Dos Santos, An Tang, Christoph Wald and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology. Artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. [Applications of artificial intelligence in radiology].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Adrian P BradyUniversity College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-3473-0282
Bibb AllenDepartment of Radiology, Grandview Medical Center, Birmingham, AL, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0761-290X
Jaron ChongDepartment of Medical Imaging, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7416-6105
Elmar KotterDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9022-6000
Nina KottlerRadiology Partners, El Segundo, CA, USA.
John MonganDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Lauren Oakden-RaynerAustralian Institute for Machine Learning, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5471-5202
Daniel Pinto Dos SantosDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4785-6394
An TangDepartment of Radiology, Radiation Oncology, and Nuclear Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Christoph WaldDepartment of Radiology, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1329-8235
John SlavotinekSouth Australia Medical Imaging, Flinders Medical Centre Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2765-7451
University College Cork · IEAmerican College of Radiology · USFlinders University · AUGoethe University Frankfurt · DEUniversity of California, San Francisco · USWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) carries the potential for unprecedented disruption in radiology, with possible positive and negative consequences. The integration of AI in radiology holds the potential to revolutionize healthcare practices by advancing diagnosis, quantification, and management of multiple medical conditions. Nevertheless, the ever-growing availability of AI tools in radiology highlights an increasing need to critically evaluate claims for its utility and to differentiate safe product offerings from potentially harmful, or fundamentally unhelpful ones. This multi-society paper, presenting the views of Radiology Societies in the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, defines the potential practical problems and ethical issues surrounding the incorporation of AI into radiological practice. In addition to delineating the main points of concern that developers, regulators, and purchasers of AI tools should consider prior to their introduction into clinical practice, this statement also suggests methods to monitor their stability and safety in clinical use, and their suitability for possible autonomous function. This statement is intended to serve as a useful summary of the practical issues which should be considered by all parties involved in the development of radiology AI resources, and their implementation as clinical tools.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceRadiologyAutomationCanadaHumansRadiographyArtificial IntelligenceAutomationMachine LearningRadiology

Identifiers

PMID38251899
PMCPMC10831521
OpenAlexW4391109191

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.