Integrating artificial intelligence into the clinical practice of radiology: challenges and recommendations
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to significantly disrupt the way radiology will be practiced in the near future, but several issues need to be resolved before AI can be widely implemented in daily practice. These include the role of the different stakeholders in the development of AI for imaging, the ethical development and use of AI in healthcare, the appropriate validation of each developed AI algorithm, the development of effective data sharing mechanisms, regulatory hurdles for the clearance of AI algorithms, and the development of AI educational resources for both practicing radiologists and radiology trainees. This paper details these issues and presents possible solutions based on discussions held at the 2019 meeting of the International Society for Strategic Studies in Radiology. KEY POINTS: • Radiologists should be aware of the different types of bias commonly encountered in AI studies, and understand their possible effects. • Methods for effective data sharing to train, validate, and test AI algorithms need to be developed. • It is essential for all radiologists to gain an understanding of the basic principles, potentials, and limits of AI.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some technical understanding is imperative for quality and safety assessment and therefore creates trust in the AI application's reliability.
“However, some technical understanding is imperative for quality and safety assessment and therefore create trust in the AI application’s reliability [8, 21, 30].”
From Implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in radiology: hindering and facilitating factors (2020) · cites this paper as [21]
AI applications in radiology are in an emerging phase, so it is too early to evaluate their implementation.
“Considering that AI applications in radiology are in an emerging phase, it is too early to evaluate their implementation [21].”
From Implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in radiology: hindering and facilitating factors (2020) · cites this paper as [21]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 268
- Authors
- Recht, M. P., Dewey, M., Dreyer, K., Langlotz, C., Niessen, W., Prainsack, B., & Smith, J. J.
- Affiliations
- NYU Langone Health (US)
- Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- University of Vienna (AT)
- Hogan Lovells (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Recht, Michael P.
- Venue
- European Radiology
- Published
- 2020-02-17
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 3576-3584
- ISSN
- 0938-7994 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1084
- OpenAlex
- W2995162454
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 7
- FWCI
- 7.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Radiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in radiology, clinical implementation of AI, AI ethics, algorithm validation, radiology education, algorithmic bias, radiology residents
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Radiologists, Deep Learning, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Forecasting, Humans, Radiology, Reproducibility of Results, Information Dissemination, Validation Studies as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review