Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40095011›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2025

Availability and transparency of artificial intelligence models in radiology: a meta-research study.

Taehee Lee, Jong Hyuk Lee, Soon Ho Yoon, Seong Ho Park, Hyungjin Kim

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

5 authors.

Taehee LeeDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Jongno-gu, Korea.
Jong Hyuk LeeDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Jongno-gu, Korea.
Soon Ho YoonDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Jongno-gu, Korea.
Seong Ho ParkDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Songpa-gu, Korea.
Hyungjin KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Jongno-gu, Korea. khj.snuh@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0722-0033

Funding

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology RS-2023-00207978
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis meta-research study explored the availability of artificial intelligence (AI) models from development studies published in leading radiology journals in 2022, with availability defined as the transparent reporting of relevant technical details, such as model architecture and weights, necessary for independent replication. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic search of Ovid Medline and Embase was conducted to identify AI model development studies published in five leading radiology journals in 2022. Data were extracted on study characteristics, model details, and code and model-sharing practices. The proportion of AI studies sharing their models was analyzed. Logistic regression analyses were employed to explore associations between study characteristics and model availability.

resultsOf 268 studies reviewed, 39.9% (n = 107) made their models available. Deep learning (DL) models exhibited particularly low availability, with only 11.5% (n = 13) of the 113 studies being fully available. Training codes for DL models were provided in 22.1% (n = 25), suggesting limited ability to train DL models with one's own data. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the use of traditional regression-based models (odds ratio [OR], 17.11; 95% CI: 5.52, 53.05; p < 0.001) was associated with higher availability, while the radiomics package usage (OR, 0.27; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.65; p = 0.003) was associated with lower availability.

conclusionThe availability of AI models in radiology publications remains suboptimal, especially for DL models. Enforcing model-sharing policies, enhancing external validation platforms, addressing commercial restrictions, and providing demos for commercial models in open repositories are necessary to improve transparency and replicability in radiology AI research. KEY POINTS: Question The study addresses the limited availability of AI models in radiology, especially DL models, which impacts external validation and clinical reliability. Findings Only 39.9% of radiology AI studies made their models available, with DL models showing particularly low availability at 11.5%. Clinical relevance Improving the availability of radiology AI models is essential for enabling external validation, ensuring reliable clinical application, and advancing patient care by fostering robust and transparent AI systems.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceRadiologyDeep LearningHumansArtificial intelligenceMachine learningModel availabilityReplicabilityReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID40095011
PMCPMC12350510

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.