Cited by 142Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiology practices and educationRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

A Qualitative Study to Understand Patient Perspective on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Radiology

Open access
Haan, Marieke, Ongena, Yfke P., Hommes, Saar, Kwee, Thomas C., Yakar, Derya·2019·Journal of the American College of Radiology

Abstract

Credits awarded for this enduring activity are designated “SA-CME” by the American Board of Radiology (ABR) and qualify toward fulfilling requirements for Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Part II: Lifelong Learning and Self-assessment. To access the SA-CME activity visit https://cortex.acr.org/Presenters/CaseScript/CaseView?CDId=ULjRyQ8Jbyg%3d. SA-CME credit expires April 2022.

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.jacr.2018.12.043

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • No research has yet explored what information patients consider important or significant for making treatment decisions when AI is used in a clinical setting.

    “Although the value of empirical research on patients’ views regarding information disclosure in the use of AI/ML in medicine has been recognized, 12 no research has yet explored what information patients consider important or significant for making treatment decisions when AI is used in a clinical setting.26–28”
  • Previous empirical studies on patients' acceptance or trust in AI are somewhat conflicting.

    “The results of previous empirical studies on patients’ acceptance or trust in AI are somewhat conflicting. Some studies have shown that participants are more accepting of AI if it is proven to be more accurate than providers26,29 or if the use of AI fits societal and cultural norms.35,36 However, other studies have found that trust in AI did not increase when participants were informed that the AI”
  • The increased anxiety can potentially be attributed to the perception of currently available AI as premature technology.

    “This anxiety can potentially be attributed to the perception of currently available AI as premature technology,26,30–33 which could be addressed by providing more information about its effectiveness and exact application in relation to the AI tool.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hosny A, Parmar C, Quackenbush J, Schwartz LH, Aerts HJWL. Artificial intelli- gence in radiology. Nat Rev Cancer 2018;18: 500-10.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haan, M., Ongena, Y. P., Hommes, S., Kwee, T. C., & Yakar, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Haan, Marieke
Venue
Journal of the American College of Radiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-10
Volume
16
Issue
10
Pages
1416-1419
ISSN
1546-1440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2921174746
Cited by
141
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Radiology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
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, radiology, patient perspectives, patient attitudes, clinical implementation of AI, patient experience
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Artificial Intelligence, Attitude to Health, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patients, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Qualitative Research

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