Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39636421›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2025

ESR Essentials: how to get to valuable radiology AI: the role of early health technology assessment-practice recommendations by the European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics.

Erik H M Kemper, Hendrik Erenstein, Bart-Jan Boverhof, Ken Redekop, Anna E Andreychenko, Matthias Dietzel, Kevin B W Groot Lipman, Merel Huisman, Michail E Klontzas, Frans Vos and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Erik H M KemperDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hendrik ErensteinDepartment of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy, The Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Bart-Jan BoverhofErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ken RedekopErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Anna E AndreychenkoK-SkAI LLC, Petrozavodsk, Russia.
Matthias DietzelDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Kevin B W Groot LipmanDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Merel HuismanRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Michail E KlontzasDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece.
Frans VosDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Maarten IJzermanErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Martijn P A StarmansDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jacob J VisserDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. j.j.visser@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9935-2097

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AI tools in radiology are revolutionising the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of patients. However, there is a major gap between the large number of developed AI tools and those translated into daily clinical practice, which can be primarily attributed to limited usefulness and trust in current AI tools. Instead of technically driven development, little effort has been put into value-based development to ensure AI tools will have a clinically relevant impact on patient care. An iterative comprehensive value evaluation process covering the complete AI tool lifecycle should be part of radiology AI development. For value assessment of health technologies, health technology assessment (HTA) is an extensively used and comprehensive method. While most aspects of value covered by HTA apply to radiology AI, additional aspects, including transparency, explainability, and robustness, are unique to radiology AI and crucial in its value assessment. Additionally, value assessment should already be included early in the design stage to determine the potential impact and subsequent requirements of the AI tool. Such early assessment should be systematic, transparent, and practical to ensure all stakeholders and value aspects are considered. Hence, early value-based development by incorporating early HTA will lead to more valuable AI tools and thus facilitate translation to clinical practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This paper advocates for the use of early value-based assessments. These assessments promote a comprehensive evaluation on how an AI tool in development can provide value in clinical practice and thus help improve the quality of these tools and the clinical process they support. KEY POINTS: Value in radiology AI should be perceived as a comprehensive term including health technology assessment domains and AI-specific domains. Incorporation of an early health technology assessment for radiology AI during development will lead to more valuable radiology AI tools. Comprehensive and transparent value assessment of radiology AI tools is essential for their widespread adoption.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDiagnostic ImagingMedical InformaticsRadiologyTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalEuropeHumansSocieties, MedicalArtificial intelligenceRadiologyStakeholder participationTechnology assessment (Biomedical)Value-based healthcare

Identifiers

PMID39636421
PMCPMC12081502

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.