Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42680937›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

From digital bench to bedside: exaggerated risks, realistic expectations, and genuine challenges of medical AI.

Julian Caspers, Bert Heinrichs

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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.

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

2 authors.

Julian CaspersDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. Julian.Caspers@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1354-3667
Bert HeinrichsInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Brain & Behaviour (INM-7), Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie 01GP2113ABundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie 01GP2113C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become an increasingly prominent force in medicine, driven by rapid technical advances and a growing number of clinical applications. As the field matures, it now increasingly moves from experimental development toward a phase of broader implementation. However, debates surrounding medical AI are often shaped by exaggerated risks and overly optimistic expectations. This paper seeks to contribute to a more balanced and realistic discussion. Rather than framing AI as either an existential threat or a universal solution, we advocate for an open-minded, evidence-based understanding of AI as a tool to support healthcare and discuss current and emerging challenges related to clinical validation, human-AI interaction, bias and discrimination, education, agentic AI, and the development and maintenance of trust. KEY POINTS: Question Discussions about AI in medicine continue to be dominated by exaggerated risks and overly optimistic expectations. Findings We provide a more realistic evaluation of the current opportunities of AI in medicine and want to highlight some genuine challenges that lie ahead. Clinical relevance AI is here to stay in medicine. Focusing on real and present challenges, rather than being distracted by exaggerated risks, as well as responsible expectation management, will be key to its success.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceBiasConvolutional neural networksLarge language modelsTrust

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.