Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39616244›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2024

Impact of human and artificial intelligence collaboration on workload reduction in medical image interpretation.

Mingyang Chen, Yuting Wang, Qiankun Wang, Jingyi Shi, Huike Wang, Zichen Ye, Peng Xue, Youlin Qiao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Artificial intelligence in clinical genetics: Current practice and attitudes among the clinical genetics workforce.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Prostate MR Imaging: Technical Foundations, Clinical Applications, and Workflow Implications.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Warning people about the risk of AI error mitigates human acquisition of AI bias.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Mingyang ChenSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yuting WangSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Qiankun WangSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Jingyi ShiSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Huike WangSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Zichen YeSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Peng XueSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. xuepeng_pumc@foxmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3002-8146
Youlin QiaoSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. qiaoy@cicams.ac.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6380-0871

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinicians face increasing workloads in medical imaging interpretation, and artificial intelligence (AI) offers potential relief. This meta-analysis evaluates the impact of human-AI collaboration on image interpretation workload. Four databases were searched for studies comparing reading time or quantity for image-based disease detection before and after AI integration. The Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy was modified to assess risk of bias. Workload reduction and relative diagnostic performance were pooled using random-effects model. Thirty-six studies were included. AI concurrent assistance reduced reading time by 27.20% (95% confidence interval, 18.22%-36.18%). The reading quantity decreased by 44.47% (40.68%-48.26%) and 61.72% (47.92%-75.52%) when AI served as the second reader and pre-screening, respectively. Overall relative sensitivity and specificity are 1.12 (1.09, 1.14) and 1.00 (1.00, 1.01), respectively. Despite these promising results, caution is warranted due to significant heterogeneity and uneven study quality.

Identifiers

PMID39616244
PMCPMC11608314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.