ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2026
Impact of Artificial Intelligence Triage on Radiologist Report Turnaround Time: Real-World Time Savings and Insights From Model Predictions.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Across the Radiology Workflow: A Nine-Stage Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Orthopaedics: Clinical Performance, Limitations, and Translational Readiness-A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence improves radiologist workflow and assessment of image quality accuracy.Bioinformation · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo quantify the impact of workflow parameters on time savings in report turnaround time due to an AI triage device that prioritized pulmonary embolism (PE) in chest CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) examinations.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 11,252 adult CTPA examinations conducted for suspected PE at a single tertiary academic medical center. Data was divided into two periods: pre-artificial intelligence (AI) and post-AI. For PE-positive examinations, turnaround time (TAT)-defined as the duration from patient scan completion to the first preliminary report completion-was compared between the two periods. Time savings were reported separately for work-hour and off-hour cohorts. To characterize radiologist workflow, 527,234 records were retrieved from the PACS and workflow parameters such as examination interarrival time and radiologist read time extracted. These parameters were input into a computational model to predict time savings after deployment of an AI triage device and to study the impact of workflow parameters.
resultsThe pre-AI dataset included 4,694 chest CTPA examinations with 13.3% being PE-positive. The post-AI dataset comprised 6,558 examinations with 16.2% being PE-positive. The mean TAT for pre-AI and post-AI during work hours are 68.9 (95% confidence interval 55.0-82.8) and 46.7 (38.1-55.2) min, respectively, and those during off-hours are 44.8 (33.7-55.9) and 42.0 (33.6-50.3) min. Clinically observed time savings during work hours (22.2 [95% confidence interval: 5.85-38.6] min) were significant (P = .004), while off-hour (2.82 [-11.1 to 16.7] min) were not (P = .345). Observed time savings aligned with model predictions (29.6 [95% range: 23.2-38.1] min for work hours; 2.10 [1.76, 2.58] min for off-hours). DISCUSSION: Consideration and quantification of the clinical workflow contributes to the accurate assessment of the expected time savings in report TAT after deployment of an AI triage device.
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.