Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40397031›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2025

Systematic review on the impact of deep learning-driven worklist triage on radiology workflow and clinical outcomes.

Eshan Momin, Tessa Cook, Gabrielle Gershon, Jaret Barr, Carlo N De Cecco, Marly van Assen

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
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

6 authors.

Eshan MominDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Tessa CookDepartment of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Gabrielle GershonDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Jaret BarrDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Carlo N De CeccoDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Marly van AssenDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA. marly.van.assen@emory.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4044-4426

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo perform a systematic review on the impact of deep learning (DL)-based triage for reducing diagnostic delays and improving patient outcomes in peer-reviewed and pre-print publications. MATERIALS AND

methodsA search was conducted of primary research studies focused on DL-based worklist optimization for diagnostic imaging triage published on multiple databases from January 2018 until July 2024. Extracted data included study design, dataset characteristics, workflow metrics including report turnaround time and time-to-treatment, and patient outcome differences. Further analysis between clinical settings and integration modality was investigated using nonparametric statistics. Risk of bias was assessed with the risk of bias in non-randomized studies-of interventions (ROBINS-I) checklist.

resultsA total of 38 studies from 20 publications, involving 138,423 images, were analyzed. Workflow interventions concerned pulmonary embolism (n = 8), stroke (n = 3), intracranial hemorrhage (n = 12), and chest conditions (n = 15). Patients in the post DL-triage group had shorter median report turnaround times: a mean difference of 12.3 min (IQR: -25.7, -7.6) for pulmonary embolism, 20.5 min (IQR: -32.1, -9.3) for stroke, 4.3 min (IQR: -8.6, 1.3) for intracranial hemorrhage and 29.7 min (IQR: -2947.7, -18.3) for chest diseases. Sub-group analysis revealed that reductions varied per clinical environment and relative prevalence rates but were the highest when algorithms actively stratified and reordered the radiological worklist, with reductions of -43.7% in report turnaround time compared to -7.6% from widget-based systems (p < 0.01).

conclusionDL-based triage systems had comparable report turnaround time improvements, especially in outpatient and high-prevalence settings, suggesting that AI-based triage holds promise in alleviating radiology workloads. KEY POINTS: Question Can DL-based triage address lengthening imaging report turnaround times and improve patient outcomes across distinct clinical environments? Findings DL-based triage improved report turnaround time across disease groups, with higher reductions reported in high-prevalence or lower acuity settings. Clinical relevance DL-based workflow prioritization is a reliable tool for reducing diagnostic imaging delay for time-sensitive disease across clinical settings. However, further research and reliable metrics are needed to provide specific recommendations with regards to false-negative examinations and multi-condition prioritization.

Indexed as

Deep LearningTriageWorkflowHumansDeep learning, Diagnostic imagingTomography (X-ray computed)Triage

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.