SynthesisFrontiers in digital health2026
Responsible artificial intelligence in medical imaging: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for Cerebral Aneurysm Management: Integrating Imaging, Hemodynamics, and Clinical Decision Support.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Responsible artificial intelligence (AI) in medical imaging requires more than high diagnostic accuracy; it also requires transparent reasoning, equitable performance across patient subgroups, privacy protection, calibrated uncertainty, and clinical trustworthiness. Methods: This PRISMA-informed systematic review synthesized 24 studies published between 2020 and 2025 that used AI or deep learning for disease detection or diagnostic support in X-ray, CT, MRI, mammography, ultrasound, dermoscopy, retinal fundus imaging, optical coherence tomography, and abdominal CT. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and Google Scholar were searched, and extracted evidence was appraised qualitatively using adapted QUADAS-2 and PROBAST-AI domains. Results: The included studies covered lung diseases, COVID-19, pneumonia, lung cancer, breast cancer, melanoma and other dermatological disorders, brain tumors, diabetic retinopathy, chest abnormalities, and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Explainability methods such as Grad-CAM, Grad-CAM++, LIME, SHAP, saliency maps, and layer-wise relevance propagation dominated the evidence base, whereas fairness, privacy-preserving learning, uncertainty estimation, and human-centered clinical trust were represented by fewer studies. Several papers reported accuracy or sensitivity above 90%, but these values should be interpreted cautiously because many studies relied on internal validation, curated public datasets, class-balanced splits, augmentation, or limited demographic reporting. Discussion: Responsible medical-imaging AI should be evaluated through multidimensional evidence, including external and subgroup validation, calibration, privacy risk analysis, clinician-centered explanation assessment, workflow integration, regulatory readiness, and post-deployment monitoring.
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.