Cited by 3,803AI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Artificial intelligence in radiology

Open access
Hosny, Ahmed, Parmar, Chintan, Quackenbush, John, Schwartz, Lawrence H., Aerts, Hugo J. W. L.·2018·Nature Reviews Cancer

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, particularly deep learning, have demonstrated remarkable progress in image-recognition tasks. Methods ranging from convolutional neural networks to variational autoencoders have found myriad applications in the medical image analysis field, propelling it forward at a rapid pace. Historically, in radiology practice, trained physicians visually assessed medical images for the detection, characterization and monitoring of diseases. AI methods excel at automatically recognizing complex patterns in imaging data and providing quantitative, rather than qualitative, assessments of radiographic characteristics. In this Opinion article, we establish a general understanding of AI methods, particularly those pertaining to image-based tasks. We explore how these methods could impact multiple facets of radiology, with a general focus on applications in oncology, and demonstrate ways in which these methods are advancing the field. Finally, we discuss the challenges facing clinical implementation and provide our perspective on how the domain could be advanced.

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 · 10.1038/s41568-018-0016-5

Cites

117 of 117 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?

  • Recent advances in AI-powered tools have shown similar or better sensitivity for detecting minuscule deviations from normal anatomy compared to a human assessor.

    “For instance, recent advances in AI-powered tools have shown similar or better sensitivity for detecting minuscule deviations from normal anatomy, compared to a human assessor (20, 38–40).”

    From Examining the role of AI technology in online mental healthcare: opportunities, challenges, and implications, a mixed-methods review (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

    The ‘AI in medical imaging’ section (page not provided) reports that deep learning matched radiologists on some detection tasks and had higher sensitivity for classifying lymph-node metastases in PET-CT. The paper does not establish comparable or better sensitivity specifically for detecting minuscule deviations from normal anatomy; its ‘Future perspectives’ section attributes discrimination of minute tissue-density differences to imaging hardware. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Deep learning can successfully be used for identifying and segmenting objects within the 3-dimensional image space.

    “Especially in medical imaging there is a large potential as deep learning can successfully be used for identifying and segmenting objects within the 3-dimensional (3D) image space13–16.”
  • Many AI applications in health care have demonstrated performance that matches or even surpasses that of human physicians in medical diagnosis, execution of treatment and surgery.

    “Many AI applications in health care have demonstrated performance that matches or even surpasses that of human physicians in medical diagnosis, execution of treatment and surgery.1–3”
  • AI systems make errors in reading, classifying, and reconstructing radiological images, but the error rate is decreasing, and AI systems will soon outperform humans in terms of speed and accuracy of image reading.

    “AI systems also make errors in reading, classifying, and reconstructing radiological images, but the error rate is decreasing, and AI systems will soon outperform humans in terms of speed and accuracy of image reading [12, 17, 103, 228].”
  • An average radiologist now needs to interpret one image every 3-4 s to keep up with clinical workloads.

    “Studies have shown that an average radiologist now needs to interpret one image every 3–4 s to keep up with clinical workloads3–5.”

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: 20

  1. [36]Chen H, Zheng Y, Park J-H, Heng P-A & Zhou SK in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention — MICCAI 2016 487– 495 (Athens, Greece, 2016).
  2. [43]Huang X, Shan J & Vaidya V in 2017 IEEE 14th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2017) 379– 383 (Melbourne, Australia, 2017).
  3. [51]Ghose S in 2012 19th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing 541– 544 (Orlando, FL, USA, 2012).
  4. [53]Long J, Shelhamer E & Darrell T in 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 3431– 3440 (Boston, MA, USA, 2015).
  5. [54]Ronneberger O, Fischer P & Brox TU in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention — MICCAI 2015 234– 241 (Munich, Germany, 2015).
  6. [55]Moeskops P in Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention — MICCAI 2016 478– 486 (Athens, Greece, 2016).
  7. [56]de Brebisson A & Montana G in 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) 20– 28 (Boston, MA, USA, 2015).
  8. [66]Sohn K, Shang W & Lee H in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 (NIPS 2014) (eds Ghahramani Z, Welling M, Cortes C, Lawrence ND & Weinberger KQ) 2141– 2149 (Montreal, Canada, 2014).
  9. [74]Pipatsrisawat T, Gacic A, Franchetti F, Puschel M & Moura JMF in Proceedings. (ICASSP ‘05). IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2005 v/153– v/156 (Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2005).
  10. [76]Hammernik K, Würfl T, Pock T & Maier AA in Bildverarbeitung für die Medizin 2017 (eds Maier-Hein K, Deserno T, Handels H & Tolxdorff T) 92– 97 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017).
  11. [80]Ngiam J in Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning 689– 696 (Bellevue, WA, USA, 2011).
  12. [87]Shin H-C in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 2497– 2506 (Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2016).
  13. [95]Goodfellow I in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 (NIPS 2014) (eds Ghahramani Z, Welling M, Cortes C, Lawrence ND & Weinberger KQ) 2672– 2680 (Montreal, Canada, 2014).
  14. [97]Kamnitsas K in Information Processing in Medical Imaging 597– 609 (Springer, Cham, 2017).
  15. [99]Zhang P, Wang F & Zheng Y in 2017 IEEE 14th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2017) 578– 582 (Melbourne, Australia, 2017).
  16. [102]Ford RA, Price W & Nicholson II Privacy and accountability in black-box medicine. Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev 23, 1 (2016).
  17. [106]Shokri R & Shmatikov V in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security 1310– 1321 (Denver, CO, USA, 2015).
  18. [107]Phong LT, Aono Y, Hayashi T, Wang L & Moriai S in Applications and Techniques in Information Security. 8th International Conference, ATIS 2017 (eds Batten L, Kim DS, Zhang X & Li G) 719, 100– 110 (Auckland, New Zealand, 2017).
  19. [108]McMahan HB, Moore E, Ramage D, Hampson S & y Arcas BA in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS) 1273– 1282 (Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 2017).
  20. [109]Gilad-Bachrach R in Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning 201– 210 (New York, NY, USA, 2016).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hosny, A., Parmar, C., Quackenbush, J., Schwartz, L. H., & Aerts, H. J. W. L.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
  • NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Aerts, Hugo J. W. L.
Venue
Nature Reviews Cancer
Published
2018-05-17
Volume
18
Issue
8
Pages
500-510
ISSN
  • 1474-175X (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-1768
OpenAlex
W2803760365
Cited by
3,803
References
117
Citations by year
2026: 454 · 2025: 677 · 2024: 693 · 2023: 602 · 2022: 483 · 2021: 449 · 2020: 303 · 2019: 127 · 2018: 15
FWCI
26.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature reviews. Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (U01CA190234, U01CA151118, U24CA194354)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
artificial intelligence in radiology, deep learning, medical image analysis, convolutional neural networks, variational autoencoder, image recognition, cancer detection, computer-aided diagnosis, clinical implementation barriers
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Neoplasms, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Radiology

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