Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40707732›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2026

Artificial intelligence in radiology: 173 commercially available products and their scientific evidence.

Noa Antonissen, Olga Tryfonos, Ignas B Houben, Colin Jacobs, Maarten de Rooij, Kicky G van Leeuwen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Applications of artificial intelligence in nuclear medicine.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Prostate MR Imaging: Technical Foundations, Clinical Applications, and Workflow Implications.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Noa Antonissen *Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. noa.antonissen@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8702-3640
Olga Tryfonos *Department of Dentistry, School of Medicine, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Ignas B Houben *Department of Medical Imaging, Isala, The Netherlands.
Colin JacobsDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Maarten de RooijDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Kicky G van LeeuwenRomion Health, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess changes in peer-reviewed evidence on commercially available radiological artificial intelligence (AI) products from 2020 to 2023, as a follow-up to a 2020 review of 100 products. MATERIALS AND

methodsA literature review was conducted, covering January 2015 to March 2023, focusing on CE-certified radiological AI products listed on www.healthairegister.com . Papers were categorised using the hierarchical model of efficacy: technical/diagnostic accuracy (levels 1-2), clinical decision-making and patient outcomes (levels 3-5), or socio-economic impact (level 6). Study features such as design, vendor independence, and multicentre/multinational data usage were also examined.

resultsBy 2023, 173 CE-certified AI products from 90 vendors were identified, compared to 100 products in 2020. Products with peer-reviewed evidence increased from 36% to 66%, supported by 639 papers (up from 237). Diagnostic accuracy studies (level 2) remained predominant, though their share decreased from 65% to 57%. Studies addressing higher-efficacy levels (3-6) remained constant at 22% and 24%, with the number of products supported by such evidence increasing from 18% to 31%. Multicentre studies rose from 30% to 41% (p < 0.01). However, vendor-independent studies decreased (49% to 45%), as did multinational studies (15% to 11%) and prospective designs (19% to 16%), all with p > 0.05.

conclusionThe increase in peer-reviewed evidence and higher levels of evidence per product indicate maturation in the radiological AI market. However, the continued focus on lower-efficacy studies and reductions in vendor independence, multinational data, and prospective designs highlight persistent challenges in establishing unbiased, real-world evidence. KEY POINTS: Question Evaluating advancements in peer-reviewed evidence for CE-certified radiological AI products is crucial to understand their clinical adoption and impact. Findings CE-certified AI products with peer-reviewed evidence increased from 36% in 2020 to 66% in 2023, but the proportion of higher-level evidence papers (~24%) remained unchanged. Clinical relevance The study highlights increased validation of radiological AI products but underscores a continued lack of evidence on their clinical and socio-economic impact, which may limit these tools' safe and effective implementation into clinical workflows.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceRadiologyHumansArtificial intelligenceDevice approvalEvidence-based practiceRadiology

Identifiers

PMID40707732
PMCPMC12711992

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.