ArticleBMC health services research2025
Risk inventory and mitigation actions for AI in medical imaging-a qualitative study of implementing standalone AI for screening mammography.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent prospective studies have shown that AI may be integrated in double-reader settings to increase cancer detection. The ScreenTrustCAD study was conducted at the breast radiology department at the Capio S:t Göran Hospital where AI is now implemented in clinical practice. This study reports on how the hospital prepared by exploring risks from an enterprise risk management perspective, i.e., applying a holistic and proactive perspective, and developed risk mitigation actions.
methodThe study was conducted as an integral part of the preparations before implementing AI in a breast imaging department. Collaborative ideation sessions were conducted with personnel at the hospital, either directly or indirectly involved with AI, to identify risks. Two external experts with competencies in cybersecurity, machine learning, and the ethical aspects of AI, were interviewed as a complement. The risks identified were analyzed according to an Enterprise Risk Management framework, adopted for healthcare, that assumes risks to be emerging from eight different domains. Finally, appropriate risk mitigation actions were identified and discussed.
findingsTwenty-three risks were identified covering seven of eight risk domains, in turn generating 51 suggested risk mitigation actions. Not only does the study indicate the emergence of patient safety risks, but it also shows that there are operational, strategic, financial, human capital, legal, and technological risks. The risks with most suggested mitigation actions were ‘Radiographers unable to answer difficult questions from patients’, ‘Increased risk that patient-reported symptoms are missed by the single radiologist’, ‘Increased pressure on the single reader knowing they are the only radiologist to catch a mistake by AI’, and ‘The performance of the AI algorithm might deteriorate’.
conclusionBefore a clinical integration of AI, hospitals should expand, identify, and address risks beyond immediate patient safety by applying comprehensive and proactive risk management.
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.