Cited by 60Radiology practices and educationDiversity and Career in MedicineArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Impact of artificial intelligence on US medical students' choice of radiology

Reeder, Kristen, Lee, Hwan·2022·Clinical Imaging

Abstract

Purpose International student surveys have shown significant anxiety about pursuing radiology as a career due to artificial intelligence (AI). For a counterpart study in the US, we examined the impact of AI on US medical students' choice of radiology as a career, and how such impact is influenced by students' opinions on and exposures to AI and radiology.Methods Students across 32 US medical schools participated in an anonymous online survey. The respondents' radiology ranking with and without AI were compared. Among those considering radiology within their top 3 choices, change in radiology ranking due to AI was statistically examined for association with baseline characteristics, subjective opinions, and prior exposures.Results AI significantly lowered students' preference for ranking radiology (P < .001). One-sixth of students who would have chosen radiology as the first choice did not do so because of AI, and approximately half of those considering radiology within their top 3 choices remained concerned about AI. Ranking radiology lower due to AI was associated with greater concerns about AI (P < .001), less perceived understanding of radiology (P = .02), predicting a decrease in job opportunities (P < .001), and exposure to AI through medical students/family (P = .03) as well as through radiology attendings and residents (P = .03). Education on AI during radiology rotations, followed by pre-clinical lectures, was the most preferred way to learn about AI.Conclusion AI has a significantly negative impact on US medical students' choice of radiology as a career, a phenomenon influenced by both individual concerns and exposure to AI from the medical community.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.09.018

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reeder, K., & Lee, H.
Affiliations
  • Quinnipiac University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Lee, Hwan
Venue
Clinical Imaging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-01
Volume
81
Pages
67-71
ISSN
0899-7071 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3203379271
Cited by
60
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13
FWCI
5.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence, medical students, career interest, AI anxiety, radiology education, AI exposure, radiology workforce
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Radiography, Radiology, Students, Medical

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