ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Perceptions of artificial intelligence for radiographic image accuracy: a cross-sectional survey of radiology personnel.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the perceptions of radiology students, interns, and technologists regarding the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in improving the accuracy of radiographic images, and to compare these perceptions across the three groups. Materials and methods: A quantitative, cross-sectional study was conducted at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS) campuses in Riyadh, Jeddah, and Al-Ahsa, and at National Guard hospitals in Jeddah, between January and December 2025. Radiology students, interns, and technologists were recruited by non-probability convenience sampling ( Results: Of 81 respondents, 91.4% self-rated their AI knowledge as good to excellent, although 60.5% reported never having used AI tools in radiological practice. Most respondents (79.0%) had not received AI-related training, and 86.4% agreed that combining AI with human expertise increases diagnostic accuracy. AI was widely regarded as an effective diagnostic aid (87.7%), although trust in AI-processed radiological images was considerably lower (30.9% agreement, 42.0% neutral). The overall composite AI-attitude score (median 3.85, IQR 3.54-4.15; mean 3.82 ± 0.53) showed no statistically significant differences in this sample across the subgroups examined, including gender ( Conclusion: Participants held positive perceptions of AI as a supportive tool and believed that its integration with human expertise could improve radiographic image accuracy and reduce diagnostic errors, without viewing AI as a replacement for radiologic technologists. These findings reflect participants' perceptions rather than objectively measured diagnostic performance. Clinical relevance statement: Understanding how radiology students, interns, and technologists perceive artificial intelligence supports its integration into clinical imaging workflows, informs targeted training programs, and helps align professional expectations with the realistic role of AI in improving radiographic image accuracy.
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.