Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40097768›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025

Radiology AI Lab: Evaluation of Radiology Applications with Clinical End-Users.

Olivier Paalvast, Merlijn Sevenster, Omar Hertgers, Hubrecht de Bliek, Victor Wijn, Vincent Buil, Jaap Knoester, Sandra Vosbergen, Hildo Lamb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Olivier PaalvastLeiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, the Netherlands. o.t.paalvast@lumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8790-7964
Merlijn SevensterLeiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, the Netherlands.
Omar HertgersLeiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, the Netherlands.
Hubrecht de BliekRoyal Philips B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Victor WijnRoyal Philips B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Vincent BuilRoyal Philips B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jaap KnoesterRoyal Philips B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Sandra VosbergenRoyal Philips B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Hildo LambLeiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the approval of over 200 artificial intelligence (AI) applications for radiology in the European Union, widespread adoption in clinical practice remains limited. Current assessments of AI applications often rely on post-hoc evaluations, lacking the granularity to capture real-time radiologist-AI interactions. The purpose of the study is to realise the Radiology AI lab for real-time, objective measurement of the impact of AI applications on radiologists' workflows. We proposed the user-state sensing framework (USSF) to structure the sensing of radiologist-AI interactions in terms of personal, interactional, and contextual states. Guided by the USSF, a lab was established using three non-invasive biometric measurement techniques: eye-tracking, heart rate monitoring, and facial expression analysis. We conducted a pilot test with four radiologists of varying experience levels, who read ultra-low-dose (ULD) CT cases in (1) standard PACS and (2) manually annotated (to mimic AI) PACS workflows. Interpretation time, eye-tracking metrics, heart rate variability (HRV), and facial expressions were recorded and analysed. The Radiology AI lab was successfully realised as an initial physical iteration of the USSF at a tertiary referral centre. Radiologists participating in the pilot test read 32 ULDCT cases (mean age, 52 years ± 23 (SD); 17 male; 16 cases with abnormalities). Cases were read on average in 4.1 ± 2.2 min (standard PACS) and 3.9 ± 1.9 min (AI-annotated PACS), with no significant difference (p = 0.48). Three out of four radiologists showed significant shifts (p < 0.02) in eye-tracking metrics, including saccade duration, saccade quantity, fixation duration, fixation quantity, and pupil diameter, when using the AI-annotated workflow. These changes align with prior findings linking such metrics to increased competency and reduced cognitive load, suggesting a more efficient visual search strategy in AI-assisted interpretation. Although HRV metrics did not correlate with experience, when combined with facial expression analysis, they helped identify key moments during the pilot test. The Radiology AI lab was successfully realised, implementing personal, interactional, and contextual states of the user-state sensing framework, enabling objective analysis of radiologists' workflows, and effectively capturing relevant biometrics. Future work will focus on expanding sensing of the contextual state of the user-state sensing framework, refining baseline determination, and continuing investigation of AI-enabled tools in radiology workflows.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceRadiologyEye-Tracking TechnologyFacial ExpressionHeart RateHumansMalePilot ProjectsTomography, X-Ray ComputedWorkflowEye-trackingObjective real-time sensingRadiology AI labUser-state sensing

Identifiers

PMID40097768
PMCPMC12701144

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.