Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41080241›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Role of Artificial Intelligence in Reducing Error Rates in Radiology: A Scoping Review.

Bhagya Sree Velamala, Shanti Gautam, Sulochan Lohani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Bhagya Sree VelamalaGeneral Medicine, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bodelwyddan, GBR.
Shanti GautamGeneral Medicine, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bodelwyddan, GBR.
Sulochan LohaniGeneral Medicine, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bodelwyddan, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This scoping review examines how artificial intelligence (AI) can help reduce errors in radiology, an area where accuracy is critical to patient care. Radiology inherently involves complex image interpretation, and even minor mistakes can lead to delayed or wrong diagnoses, as well as inappropriate treatment. With advancements in AI, particularly in machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), and natural language processing (NLP), there is growing interest in how these technologies can support radiologists and improve clinical outcomes. This review analyzed 12 studies that applied AI at various stages of the radiology workflow: before, during, and after image acquisition. AI has been used to assist in selecting appropriate imaging protocols, improving patient positioning, reducing motion artifacts, identifying abnormalities in scans, and supporting the generation of radiology reports. Across these applications, AI consistently demonstrated improvements in accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, while significantly reducing reported error rates. In several cases, AI tools successfully flagged overlooked findings, acting as a safety net in high-pressure clinical environments. Despite these promising results, challenges remain. Issues such as algorithmic bias, limited data quality, and the need for robust clinical validation still require attention. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that AI can serve as a valuable adjunct, enhancing diagnostic precision and supporting radiologists in delivering safer, more effective care. Overall, this review highlights the growing practical impact of AI in radiology and provides insights into how these technologies are already reshaping the field.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (ai)artificial intelligence in healthcareartificial intelligence in radiologyerror ratesscoping review

Identifiers

PMID41080241
PMCPMC12512053

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.