Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42144926›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2026

Agentic Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging Education: Architectural Autonomy and the Risk of Cognitive Surrender.

James Hayes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

James HayesVirtual Medical Coaching, Christchurch, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9045-9489

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As agentic artificial intelligence systems become increasingly embedded in medical imaging, practice is moving from episodic decision support to workflow-based architectures that alter how practitioners think and practise. Medical imaging practice is traditionally conceptualised using Dual Process Theory, which describes how practitioners use their System 1 (intuitive decision making) and System 2 (analytic decision making) in practice. However, as more practitioners incorporate agentic artificial intelligence systems into their workflow, a Tri-System framework may be required. This Perspective paper will show how the practitioner and an agentic artificial intelligence system become part of a cognitive team known as System 3. It will argue that an appropriate level of cognitive surrender should be considered and that current decision making should be reframed through diagnostic complementarity, with added emphasis on structured human and AI interaction to achieve optimal performance. We recommend the implementation of the following educational methods in radiography programmes: (a) training students using fault-injected medical images to reinforce the importance of human verification in image interpretation; (b) preparing students to supervise the performance of agentic artificial intelligence systems; (c) normalising AI-assisted activities to mitigate potential deskilling.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceclinical reasoningcognitive surrenderdiagnostic complementaritymedical imaging educationTri‐System Theory

Identifiers

PMID42144926
PMCPMC13399573

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.