AI in action: a road map from the radiology AI council for effective model evaluation and deployment
Open accessAbstract
As the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into radiology workflows continues to evolve, establishing standardized processes for the evaluation and deployment of AI models is crucial to ensure success. This article outlines the creation of a Radiology AI Council at a large academic center and subsequent development of framework in the form of a rubric to formalize the evaluation of radiology AI models and onboard them into clinical workflows. The rubric aims to address the challenges faced during the deployment of AI models, such as real-world model performance, workflow implementation, resource allocation, return on investment, and impact to the broader health system. Using this comprehensive rubric, the council aims to ensure that the process for selecting AI models is both standardized and transparent. This article outlines the steps taken to establish this rubric, its components, and the initial results from evaluation of 13 models over an 8-month period. We emphasize the importance of holistic model evaluation beyond performance metrics, and transparency and objectivity in AI model evaluation, with the goal of improving the efficacy and safety of AI models in radiology.
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?
Trivedi et al introduced a specialty-specific rubric developed by a Radiology AI Council to assess clinical utility, integration, and post-deployment performance of radiology AI tools.
“Trivedi et al introduced a specialty-specific rubric developed by a Radiology AI Council to assess clinical utility, integration, and post-deployment performance of radiology AI tools.”
From Establishing and implementing a responsible artificial intelligence framework: a 1-year review (2025) · cites this paper as [3]
Cites
Cestonaro, C., Delicati, A., Marcante, B., Caenazzo, L., & Tozzo, P. (2023) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2023.1305756 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Establishing and implementing a responsible artificial intelligence framework: a 1-year review
Tsoi, A. H., Gartner, G., Cotten, S. W., Kim, J., Nazarian, J., Thomas, J., McSwain, S. D., Ahmadi-Moosavi, R., & Rimal, R. (2025) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaf147 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Trivedi, H., Khosravi, B., Gichoya, J., Benson, L., Dyckman, D., Galt, J., Howard, B. M., Kikano, E. G., Kunjummen, J., Lall, N., Li, X. T., Patel, S., Safdar, N., Salastekar, N., Segovis, C., van Assen, M., & Harri, P.
- Affiliations
- Emory University (US)
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- Emory Healthcare (US)
- Grady Memorial Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Trivedi, Hari
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Radiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2025-09
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1041-1049
- ISSN
- 1546-1440 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4410629786
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 3.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of the American College of Radiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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, AI model evaluation, AI model deployment, assessment rubrics, clinical workflow integration, model selection, return on investment, AI governance, AI safety
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Radiology, United States, Models, Organizational, Workflow
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