ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Uncertainty quantification for artificial intelligence in medical imaging: what every radiologist needs to know.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
42525278What 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.