ArticleFrontiers in radiology2026
From scanner to scalpel: adapting IDEAL for accountable AI in radiology and image-guided neurosurgery.
Article in Frontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into clinical decision-making in radiology and image-guided neurosurgery, yet evidence generation, oversight, and accountability remain uneven across the technology lifecycle. Strong performance on curated test sets may not persist across institutions, scanners, patient subgroups, or changing clinical workflows. Existing reporting guidance, medical-device standards, regulatory requirements, and machine learning operations (MLOps) address important parts of this problem, but are not designed to serve as a unified, stage-gated clinical-evidence pathway across the full lifecycle. We propose IDEAL-AI, an adaptation of the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term study principles for clinical AI. IDEAL-AI organizes evidence generation across five stages and three concurrent domains: validation; governance, regulation, and ethics; and patient and system outcomes. It is intended to complement, not replace, established reporting guidelines, regulatory requirements, facility-level quality programs, and MLOps infrastructure. By separating retrospective model development from prospective live exploration, requiring prespecified technical, fairness, human-factors, and clinical endpoints, and extending evaluation through post-market surveillance, the framework offers a practical way to determine when an AI system is ready to progress. Success should be judged not by adoption speed or benchmark accuracy alone, but by reproducible clinical benefit for patients, clinicians, and health systems.
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.