Trial reportJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2025
Artificial Intelligence in the Training of Radiology Residents: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Local and Global Challenges and Achievements to the Future of Cancer Education: Reports from the Conferences of the European and American Associations of Cancer Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Multi-view AI output variability as a teaching resource in a micro-course for thyroid TI-RADS interpretation among ultrasound residents: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in multidisciplinary tumor boards enhancing decision making and clinical outcomes in oncology.iScience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of AI-assisted training and conventional human training in clinical practice. This was a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial conducted in five national-level residency training hospitals. Residents from five hospitals participated, divided into three groups: conventional training (Group A), conventional plus specialty training (Group B), and conventional plus AI-assisted training (Group C). The content of the training was ultrasound diagnosis of thyroid nodules. The training lasted for 18 months, and the three groups of participants were phase-tested every 3 months to compare the effect of the training. The diagnostic accuracy of all three groups gradually increased with increasing training time. Among the three groups, groups B and C had higher accuracy than group A (P < .001), and there was no significant difference between groups B and C (P = .64). Over the training period, diagnostic confidence increased in all groups. Negative activating emotions decreased significantly over time in all groups (95% CI, - 0.81 to - 0.37; P < .001), while positive activating emotions increased significantly (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.53; P < .001). Current research shows that all three approaches are viable for training radiology residents. Furthermore, the AI-assisted approach had no negative emotional impact on the trainees, suggesting that integrating AI into radiology training programs could provide a reliable and effective means of achieving the educational goals of medical education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39242467What 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.