ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Vendors' perspectives on AI implementation in medical imaging and oncology: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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.
- Alignment of Policy, Practice, and Patient Safety for Trustworthy AI in Radiology.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 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
objectivesTo explore the perspectives of AI vendors on the integration of AI in medical imaging and oncology clinical practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn online survey was created on Qualtrics, comprising 23 closed and 5 open-ended questions. This was administered through social media, personalised emails, and the channels of the European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics and Health AI Register, to all those working at a company developing or selling accredited AI solutions for medical imaging and oncology. Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS software, version 28.0. Qualitative data were summarised using content analysis on NVivo, version 14.
resultsIn total, 83 valid responses were received, with participants having a global distribution and diverse roles and professional backgrounds (business/management/clinical practitioners/engineers/IT, etc). The respondents mentioned the top enablers (practitioner acceptance, business case of AI applications, explainability) and challenges (new regulations, practitioner acceptance, business case) of AI implementation. Co-production with end-users was confirmed as a key practice by most (52.9%). The respondents recognised infrastructure issues within clinical settings (64.1%), lack of clinician engagement (54.7%), and lack of financial resources (42.2%) as key challenges in meeting customer expectations. They called for appropriate reimbursement, robust IT support, clinician acceptance, rigorous regulation, and adequate user training to ensure the successful integration of AI into clinical practice.
conclusionThis study highlights that people, infrastructure, and funding are fundamentals of AI implementation. AI vendors wish to work closely with regulators, patients, clinical practitioners, and other key stakeholders, to ensure a smooth transition of AI into daily practice. KEY POINTS: Question AI vendors' perspectives on unmet needs, challenges, and opportunities for AI adoption in medical imaging are largely underrepresented in recent research. Findings Provision of consistent funding, optimised infrastructure, and user acceptance were highlighted by vendors as key enablers of AI implementation. Clinical relevance Vendors' input and collaboration with clinical practitioners are necessary to clinically implement AI. This study highlights real-world challenges that AI vendors face and opportunities they value during AI implementation. Keeping the dialogue channels open is key to these collaborations.
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.