Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41247638›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2026

AI in radiology and interventions: a structured narrative review of workflow automation, accuracy, and efficiency gains of today and what's coming.

Michael Friebe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

1 author.

Michael FriebeFaculty of Computer Science, AGH University of Krakow, Healthtech Innovation Laboratory, Kraków, Poland. friebe@agh.edu.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8624-0800

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 504923173Narodowe Centrum Nauki 2021/43/I/ST7/03098
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeArtificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming diagnostic and interventional radiology, supported by accelerating regulatory approvals and clinical adoption. Despite progress, integration varies across modalities and procedures. This study is a structured narrative review of four representative workflows-MRI and CT screening, coronary stenting, and liver cryoablation-to quantify automation readiness, accuracy gains, and efficiency improvements. The novelty lies in comparing diagnostic and interventional domains to highlight distinct maturity levels and future opportunities for AI-driven workflow optimization and clinical value creation.

methodsA structured analysis was performed identifying 43 workflow steps across the four selected procedures. Each step was evaluated for potential automation, accuracy improvement, and ability to provide new clinical insights, considering current availability and projected 2030 maturity. The assessment drew on peer-reviewed literature, FDA approvals, and industry data (2015-2025). A structured taxonomy distinguished between full automation, human-augmented improvements, and novel AI-enabled guidance functions.

resultsDiagnostic imaging showed higher maturity than interventional workflows. Currently, 70% of MRI and 64% of CT steps have available AI solutions, compared to 55% in coronary stenting and 36% in liver cryoablation. By 2030, nearly all steps are expected to be AI-supported. AI achieved up to 94% segmentation accuracy, 95% nodule detection sensitivity, 30-75% scan time reductions, and 30-50% faster reporting. Interventional applications improved catheter navigation, probe placement, and ablation success but still required significant human oversight.

conclusionsAI has already demonstrated measurable gains in diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, and workflow standardization. Interventional applications are emerging, with future growth expected in guidance, robotics, and real-time optimization. Despite progress, key limitations include algorithm generalizability, clinical interpretability, organizational readiness, and regulatory uncertainty. AI will augment rather than replace human expertise, with collaborative human-AI workflows being essential. Future integration efforts must address interoperability, workforce adaptation, and ethical considerations to ensure safe, equitable, and clinically impactful deployment.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceWorkflowAutomationCryosurgeryHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingStentsTomography, X-Ray ComputedArtificial intelligenceCancer screeningCoronary stentingCryoablationCTDeep learningDiagnostic imagingInterventional radiologyMRIWorkflow automation

Identifiers

PMID41247638
PMCPMC12929352

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.