ReviewOral radiology2026
Artificial intelligence in diagnostic imaging: collaborative asset or looming replacement?
Review in Oral radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Readiness of Artificial Intelligence Models for MB2 Canal Detection in Maxillary Molars: A Scoping Review.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for the detection and diagnosis of oral and maxillofacial lesions: evidence, limitations, and future directions.Brazilian oral research · 2026Review
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
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming diagnostic imaging, raising important questions about its role as a collaborative tool or a potential replacement for human expertise. This rapid communication reviews current evidence on AI applications in diagnostic imaging, focusing on clinical, ethical, and legal challenges. Although AI models show promise in detecting abnormalities and optimizing workflows, many remain limited by narrow training datasets and lack external validation. Ethical issues such as algorithm transparency, bias, and accountability are discussed, alongside the financial and practical implications of integrating AI tools into clinical practice, highlighting the need for clear guidelines and regulatory oversight. Radiologists continue to play a crucial role in interpreting images and validating AI outputs to avoid diagnostic errors, while the potential risks of overreliance on AI, including erosion of diagnostic skills among clinicians, are also emphasized. This communication advocates for responsible AI implementation that supports, rather than replaces, the expertise and judgment of healthcare professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41105279What 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.