ReviewEuropean radiology2026
Efficacy evaluation of artificial intelligence in radiological imaging diagnosis based on randomized controlled trials: a scoping review.
Review in European radiology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveArtificial intelligence (AI) demonstrates significant potential in medical imaging diagnosis, yet its real-world clinical value requires validation through high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Existing RCTs report heterogeneous results across settings and outcomes, motivating a scoping review to map current evidence and identify gaps. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis scoping review mapped RCTs published up to March 2026 that evaluated AI tools for imaging-based diagnosis in radiology in clinical settings. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, screened studies using predefined eligibility criteria, and extracted study characteristics and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 and the RoB 2 tool, and findings were synthesized descriptively in line with PRISMA-ScR.
resultsBy analyzing the included RCTs, AI tools for imaging-based diagnosis in radiology were mainly deployed as clinician-facing decision aids and were generally associated with higher sensitivity or lesion detection rates and shorter image-processing time. However, the benefits were smaller in complex scenarios such as emergency care, and low specificity remained a common limitation.
conclusionOverall, AI tools for imaging-based diagnosis in radiology are currently used mainly as clinician-facing decision aids and may be most beneficial in standardized tasks, with effects varying across clinical settings. Larger multicenter prospective RCTs with consistent, clinically meaningful endpoints are needed to support robust clinical translation. KEY POINTS: Question Is there any high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the clinical benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiological image diagnosis? Findings Through a review of nine RCTs, AI tools for imaging-based diagnosis tended to raise sensitivity, but gains were smaller in emergency care and specificity often remained low. Clinical relevance As an assistive tool, AI can improve imaging sensitivity and reduce missed diagnoses in standardized scenarios; however, further high-quality RCT evidence is still needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42406054What 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.