Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42525278›Full record

ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026

Uncertainty quantification for artificial intelligence in medical imaging: what every radiologist needs to know.

Fernando Vega Lara, Lisa D Koopmans, Christian Roest, Baris Turkbey, Derya Yakar, Thomas C Kwee

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Fernando Vega LaraDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. f.vega.lara@umcg.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0013-8133
Lisa D KoopmansDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Christian RoestDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Branch, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA.
Derya YakarDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Thomas C KweeDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.

Funding

Siemens Healthineers SEMAI-S IPA48
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly integrating into clinical radiology. As primary diagnosticians, radiologists increasingly interpret AI-generated analyses and are expected to oversee the monitoring and governance of deployed AI systems. Although AI literacy among radiologists is improving, several technical aspects of AI remain insufficiently accessible. One such concept is uncertainty quantification (UQ), which estimates the reliability of AI predictions and can signal when outputs should be interpreted with caution. This review introduces key UQ concepts relevant to radiology, distinguishing between aleatoric uncertainty and epistemic uncertainty arising from data variability and knowledge gaps. We summarize commonly used UQ approaches in current research and practice. Furthermore, through a narrative review of selected recent AI imaging studies, we illustrate how UQ methods are applied in practice and highlight methodological trends, findings, and limitations. Although UQ has the potential to improve the safety and interpretability of AI-assisted screening, challenges remain, including calibration, threshold selection, computational cost, and the need for prospective clinical validation.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDeep learningMedical imagingUncertainty quantification

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.