Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41269301›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2026

Factors influencing AI acceptance in radiology: a systematic review across the radiology workflow.

Jamie Verwey, Bora Zwart, Maarten IJzerman, Jacob J Visser, Sandra Sülz

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Multidisciplinary attitudes towards LLM-structured oncologic CT reports: a prospective fixed-sequence questionnaire study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

5 authors.

Jamie VerweyErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. verwey@eshpm.eur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-7946-3055
Bora ZwartErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Maarten IJzermanErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jacob J VisserDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sandra SülzErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

This publication is part of the "Trustworthy AI for MRI" ICAI lab within the project ROBUST: Trustworthy AI-based Systems for Sustainable Growth with project number KICH3.LTP.20.006, financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), GE Healthcare, and the Dutc KICH3.LTP.20.006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDespite AI's promise for radiology, clinical implementation remains limited. AI acceptance is a key factor in bridging the gap between technical validation and adoption. This systematic review identifies factors influencing the acceptance and use of clinical AI tools across the radiology workflow. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic search of Ovid Medline, Embase, and Web of Science Core was conducted using ASReview, a machine learning tool that prioritises relevant records for selection. Inclusion criteria targeted diverse stakeholders and studies that evaluate the acceptance of clinical AI models, rather than AI as a general concept. Extracted study characteristics included the AI model's intended purpose, subspecialty of radiology, imaging modality, stakeholder group, and technology readiness level. A narrative synthesis was performed according to the stages of the radiology workflow.

resultsThirty-seven studies were included. Most studies investigated AI applications for image interpretation, with radiologists and patients as primary stakeholder groups. Twenty-two acceptance factors were identified and grouped into 6 overarching themes. Indicating that clinical accuracy is conditional for acceptance, however, challenges remain in AI literacy, addressing regulation and ethical concerns, limited user guidance, lacking transparency and unrepresentative training data. Resistance was strongest against fully automated tasks central to radiologists' core competencies, while supportive and lower-risk applications were more readily accepted.

conclusionThis review highlights two major evidence gaps: the underrepresentation of non-clinical stakeholders and limited studies outside image interpretation. Case-specific evaluations involving diverse stakeholders are needed to support the responsible implementation of AI in radiology. KEY POINTS: Question How does a broad range of stakeholders perceive AI acceptance along the radiology workflow? Findings AI acceptance is multidimensional, while clinical accuracy is essential, it alone is insufficient to increase implementation. Strongest resistance occurs toward automated image interpretation tasks. Clinical relevance To enable effective implementation of AI in radiology, algorithmic transparency, data representation, AI literacy, and regulation are essential. Engagement of diverse stakeholders is essential to advance from AI acceptance toward meaningful clinical integration.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceRadiologyWorkflowHumansMachine LearningArtificial intelligenceDiagnostic imagingPatient acceptance of health careRadiology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.