ArticleEuropean radiology2025
How do medical institutions co-create artificial intelligence solutions with commercial startups?
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Human-AI interaction and collaboration in radiology: from conceptual frameworks to responsible implementation.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAs many radiology departments embark on adopting artificial intelligence (AI) solutions in their clinical practice, they face the challenge that commercial applications often do not fit with their needs. As a result, they engage in a co-creation process with technology companies to collaboratively develop and implement AI solutions. Despite its importance, the process of co-creating AI solutions is under-researched, particularly regarding the range of challenges that may occur and how medical and technological parties can monitor, assess, and guide their co-creation process through an effective collaboration framework. MATERIALS AND
methodsDrawing on the multi-case study of three co-creation projects at an academic medical center in the Netherlands, we examine how co-creation processes happen through different scenarios, depending on the extent to which the two parties engage in "resourcing," "adaptation," and "reconfiguration."
resultsWe offer a relational framework that helps involved parties monitor, assess, and guide their collaborations in co-creating AI solutions. The framework allows them to discover novel use-cases and reconsider their established assumptions and practices for developing AI solutions, also for redesigning their technological systems, clinical workflow, and their legal and organizational arrangements. Using the proposed framework, we identified distinct co-creation journeys with varying outcomes, which could be mapped onto the framework to diagnose, monitor, and guide collaborations toward desired results.
conclusionThe outcomes of co-creation can vary widely. The proposed framework enables medical institutions and technology companies to assess challenges and make adjustments. It can assist in steering their collaboration toward desired goals. KEY POINTS: Question How can medical institutions and AI startups effectively co-create AI solutions for radiology, ensuring alignment with clinical needs while steering collaboration effectively? Findings This study provides a co-creation framework allowing assessment of project progress, stakeholder engagement, as well as guidelines for radiology departments to steer co-creation of AI. Clinical relevance By actively involving radiology professionals in AI co-creation, this study demonstrates how co-creation helps bridge the gap between clinical needs and AI development, leading to clinically relevant, user-friendly solutions that enhance the radiology workflow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.