ReviewBJR artificial intelligence2025
Lessons learned from a multi-centre implementation of an artificial intelligence algorithm to detect vertebral fractures for radiology, information technology, information governance and clinical leads.
Review in BJR artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been developed to identify vertebral fractures through reanalysis of existing CT scans. This study describes a real-world case study of the deployment of an AI solution in the NHS, from information governance (IG) and technology (IT) perspectives, to inform best practice recommendations. Five NHS hospitals were selected to deploy the Nanox AI solution to identify vertebral fractures from existing CT images. The journey to IG and IT assurance was described and used to inform recommendations. The time from contract signing to IG assurance ranged between 5 and 13 months. The period from IG assurance to the analysis of the first patient scan ranged from 7 to 12 months, excluding 1 site withdrawing from the process. Each site required different IG documents: Data Protection Impact Assessment (5/5 sites), Data Protection Agreement (2/5 sites), Digital Technology Assessment Criteria (2/5 sites). IT implementation delays included third-party supplier coordination, NHS IT staff availability, and local capability. Based on the observed challenges, 6 best practice recommendations are proposed to address current challenges to AI adoption in radiology settings in the NHS to support IG and 8 to support IT implementation services. Significant challenges remain if AI is to be routinely used to identify vertebral fractures. The proposed recommendations provide a pathway to improve effective and efficient AI deployment. This study proposes recommendations from IG and IT perspectives to improve the local deployment of AI in the NHS.
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.