ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2025
Is a score enough? Pitfalls and solutions for AI severity scores.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Detection, Diagnostic, and Triage AI Buyer's Guide: Questions that Matter.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- AI model for automatic spinopelvic and spinal alignment parameters measurement from EOS.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Severity scores, which often refer to the likelihood or probability of a pathology, are commonly provided by artificial intelligence (AI) tools in radiology. However, little attention has been given to the use of these AI scores, and there is a lack of transparency into how they are generated. In this comment, we draw on key principles from psychological science and statistics to elucidate six human factors limitations of AI scores that undermine their utility: (1) variability across AI systems; (2) variability within AI systems; (3) variability between radiologists; (4) variability within radiologists; (5) unknown distribution of AI scores; and (6) perceptual challenges. We hypothesize that these limitations can be mitigated by providing the false discovery rate and false omission rate for each score as a threshold. We discuss how this hypothesis could be empirically tested. KEY POINTS: The radiologist-AI interaction has not been given sufficient attention. The utility of AI scores is limited by six key human factors limitations. We propose a hypothesis for how to mitigate these limitations by using false discovery rate and false omission rate.
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.