Cited by 75Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiology practices and educationAI in cancer detection

Artificial intelligence for diagnostics in radiology practice: a rapid systematic scoping review

Open access
Lawrence, Rachel, Dodsworth, Emma, Massou, Efthalia, Sherlaw-Johnson, Chris, Ramsay, Angus I.G., Walton, Holly, O'Regan, Tracy, Gleeson, Fergus +9 more·2025·eClinicalMedicine

Abstract

Background: The aim of this review was to evaluate evidence on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to support diagnostics in radiology, including implementation, experiences, perceptions, quantitative, and cost outcomes. Methods: = 6). Findings: Factors influencing AI adoption were identified, including the high technical demand, lack of guidance, training/knowledge, transparency, and expert engagement. Evidence demonstrated improvements in diagnostic accuracy and reductions in interpretation time. However, evidence was mixed regarding experiences of using AI, the risk of increasing false positives, and the wider impact of AI on workflow efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Interpretation: The potential benefits of AI are evident, but there is a paucity of evidence in real-world settings, supporting cautiousness in how AI is perceived (e.g., as a complementary tool, not a solution). We outline wider implications for policy and practice and summarise evidence gaps. Funding: This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (Ref: NIHR156380). NJF and AIGR are supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Central London Patient Safety Research Collaboration and NJF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

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 · 10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103228

Cites

158 of 159 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?

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
Lawrence, R., Dodsworth, E., Massou, E., Sherlaw-Johnson, C., Ramsay, A. I. G., Walton, H., O'Regan, T., Gleeson, F., Crellin, N., Herbert, K., Ng, P. L., Elphinstone, H., Mehta, R., Lloyd, J., Halliday, A., Morris, S., & Fulop, N. J.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Nuffield Trust (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Lawrence, Rachel
Venue
eClinicalMedicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-05
Volume
83
Pages
103228
ISSN
2589-5370 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410289560
Cited by
69
References
158
Citations by year
2026: 56 · 2025: 13
FWCI
16.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EClinicalMedicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR156380)
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • Health and Social Care Delivery Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
Keywords
artificial intelligence, radiology, diagnostic imaging, artificial intelligence adoption, diagnostic accuracy, false positives, workflow efficiency, cost-effectiveness, radiologist perception, implementation barriers, AI transparency, expert participation

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