Cited by 41Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiology practices and educationRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

A survey of ASER members on artificial intelligence in emergency radiology: trends, perceptions, and expectations

Open access
Agrawal, Anjali, Khatri, Garvit D., Khurana, Bharti, Sodickson, Aaron D., Liang, Yuanyuan, Dreizin, David·2023·Emergency Radiology

Abstract

Purpose There is a growing body of diagnostic performance studies for emergency radiology-related artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) tools; however, little is known about user preferences, concerns, experiences, expectations, and the degree of penetration of AI tools in emergency radiology. Our aim is to conduct a survey of the current trends, perceptions, and expectations regarding AI among American Society of Emergency Radiology (ASER) members.Methods An anonymous and voluntary online survey questionnaire was e-mailed to all ASER members, followed by two reminder e-mails. A descriptive analysis of the data was conducted, and results summarized.Results A total of 113 members responded (response rate 12%). The majority were attending radiologists (90%) with greater than 10 years' experience (80%) and from an academic practice (65%). Most (55%) reported use of commercial AI CAD tools in their practice. Workflow prioritization based on pathology detection, injury or disease severity grading and classification, quantitative visualization, and auto-population of structured reports were identified as high-value tasks. Respondents overwhelmingly indicated a need for explainable and verifiable tools (87%) and the need for transparency in the development process (80%). Most respondents did not feel that AI would reduce the need for emergency radiologists in the next two decades (72%) or diminish interest in fellowship programs (58%). Negative perceptions pertained to potential for automation bias (23%), over-diagnosis (16%), poor generalizability (15%), negative impact on training (11%), and impediments to workflow (10%).Conclusion ASER member respondents are in general optimistic about the impact of AI in the practice of emergency radiology and its impact on the popularity of emergency radiology as a subspecialty. The majority expect to see transparent and explainable AI models with the radiologist as the decision-maker.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10140-023-02121-0

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A facilitating factor is that outcomes and clinical effectiveness of AI applications should be evidence-based, ideally relying on large randomized controlled trials to support claims about effectiveness and safety, while the development process itself should be transparent and the AI system used should be explainable and verifiable.

    “Hereby, a facilitating factor is that the outcomes and clinical effectivenes of AI applications should be evidence-based, ideally relying on large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to support claims about its effectiveness and safety [36, 38, 39, 42, 58], while the development process itself should be transparent [63] and the AI system used should be explainable and verifiable [63].”

    From Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on artificial intelligence in patient care: a systematic review of hindering and facilitating factors on different levels (2025) · cites this paper as [63]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Agrawal, A., Khatri, G. D., Khurana, B., Sodickson, A. D., Liang, Y., & Dreizin, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Corresponding author
Dreizin, David
Venue
Emergency Radiology
Published
2023-03-13
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
267-277
ISSN
  • 1070-3004 (ISSN-L)
  • 1438-1435
OpenAlex
W4324017600
Cited by
41
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7
FWCI
1.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Emergency Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (NIH K08 EB027141-01A1)
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, radiologist perception, clinical decision support, computer-aided detection, explainable AI, AI transparency, automation bias, overdiagnosis, radiologist workforce, clinical implementation of AI
MeSH terms
Radiologists, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Motivation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Radiology, United States

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