ArticleInsights into imaging2024
How AI should be used in radiology: assessing ambiguity and completeness of intended use statements of commercial AI products.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The AI implementation gap in trauma radiography: standalone versus discretionary AI-integrated fracture detection.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Safe for kids? AI medical devices in radiology overlook paediatric suitability.European radiology · 2026Review
- Vendors' perspectives on AI implementation in medical imaging and oncology: a cross-sectional survey.European radiology · 2026Article
- Automation bias in AI-assisted detection of cerebral aneurysms on time-of-flight MR angiography.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging: fundamentals, detection, avoidance, mitigation, challenges, ethics, and prospects.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence for cardiac imaging is ready for widespread clinical use: Pro Con debate AI for cardiac imaging.BJR open · 2025Review
- Managing expectations and challenges of AI in radiology.European radiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntended use statements (IUSs) are mandatory to obtain regulatory clearance for artificial intelligence (AI)-based medical devices in the European Union. In order to guide the safe use of AI-based medical devices, IUSs need to contain comprehensive and understandable information. This study analyzes the IUSs of CE-marked AI products listed on AIforRadiology.com for ambiguity and completeness.
methodsWe retrieved 157 IUSs of CE-marked AI products listed on AIforRadiology.com in September 2022. Duplicate products (n = 1), discontinued products (n = 3), and duplicate statements (n = 14) were excluded. The resulting IUSs were assessed for the presence of 6 items: medical indication, part of the body, patient population, user profile, use environment, and operating principle. Disclaimers, defined as contra-indications or warnings in the IUS, were identified and compared with claims.
resultsOf 139 AI products, the majority (n = 78) of IUSs mentioned 3 or less items. IUSs of only 7 products mentioned all 6 items. The intended body part (n = 115) and the operating principle (n = 116) were the most frequently mentioned components, while the intended use environment (n = 24) and intended patient population (n = 29) were mentioned less frequently. Fifty-six statements contained disclaimers that conflicted with the claims in 13 cases.
conclusionThe majority of IUSs of CE-marked AI-based medical devices lack substantial information and, in few cases, contradict the claims of the product. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: To ensure correct usage and to avoid off-label use or foreseeable misuse of AI-based medical devices in radiology, manufacturers are encouraged to provide more comprehensive and less ambiguous intended use statements. KEY POINTS: • Radiologists must know AI products' intended use to avoid off-label use or misuse. • Ninety-five percent (n = 132/139) of the intended use statements analyzed were incomplete. • Nine percent (n = 13) of the intended use statements held disclaimers contradicting the claim of the AI product. • Manufacturers and regulatory bodies must ensure that intended use statements are comprehensive.
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.