ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Predictive and operational artificial intelligence in emergency radiology for early risk stratification in acute care settings: a scoping review.
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.
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
Abstract
introductionEmergency departments face increasing overcrowding, resulting in diagnostic delays, higher mortality, and rising healthcare costs. Early risk stratification is essential to optimise clinical decision-making. Although medical imaging plays a central role in initial assessment, workload pressures and operational constraints have driven the development of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to support triage and prioritisation in emergency radiology.
objectiveTo map and synthesise evidence on the applications, performance, and limitations of AI in emergency radiology for early risk stratification in acute care. MATERIALS AND
methodsA scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines and Joanna Briggs Institute recommendations. The protocol was developed a priori and registered in the Open Science Framework. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science identified studies published between 2015 and 2025 that evaluated AI applications in medical imaging in acute care settings. Evidence was synthesised using conceptual mapping and thematic analysis.
resultsSeventy-one studies were included. Computed tomography was the most frequently evaluated modality, followed by radiography and ultrasound. Major domains included neurovascular disease, acute cardiopulmonary conditions, trauma, COVID-19, and acute aortic syndromes. Studies reported high diagnostic performance and potential workflow benefits; however, evidence was predominantly retrospective and internally validated, with limited prospective evaluation, external validation, or evidence of improved patient-level outcomes.
conclusionsAI applications in emergency radiology show promising diagnostic and workflow-support capabilities. However, current evidence largely reflects early-stage development, with limited prospective validation, scarce real-world impact assessment, and insufficient evaluation of clinically meaningful outcomes. KEY POINTS: Question How clinically mature are AI applications designed to support early risk stratification and prioritisation in time-sensitive emergency radiology workflows? Findings Most studies report high diagnostic performance in time-sensitive conditions, yet evidence remains predominantly retrospective with limited external validation or prospective real-world implementation. Clinical relevance AI may support earlier identification and prioritisation of critical imaging findings, but routine adoption requires prospective external validation and evidence of meaningful effects on clinical decisions and patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42918885What 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.