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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 117 of the 117 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Artificial intelligence in radiology

Open access

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.

Overview

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

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 117 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Long, J., Shelhamer, E. & Darrell, T. in 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 3431–3440 (Boston, MA, USA, 2015).
  2. Sohn, K., Shang, W. & Lee, H. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 (NIPS 2014) (eds Ghahramani, Z., Welling, M., Cortes, C., Lawrence, N. D. & Weinberger, K. Q.) 2141–2149 (Montreal, Canada, 2014).
  3. Pipatsrisawat, T., Gacic, A., Franchetti, F., Puschel, M. & Moura, J. M. F. in Proceedings. (ICASSP ‘05). IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2005 v/153–v/156 (Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2005).
  4. Ngiam, J. et al. in Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning 689–696 (Bellevue, WA, USA, 2011).
  5. Shin, H.-C. et al. in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 2497–2506 (Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2016).
  6. Goodfellow, I. et al. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 (NIPS 2014) (eds Ghahramani, Z., Welling, M., Cortes, C., Lawrence, N. D. & Weinberger, K. Q.) 2672–2680 (Montreal, Canada, 2014).
  7. Zhang, P., Wang, F. & Zheng, Y. in 2017 IEEE 14th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2017) 578–582 (Melbourne, Australia, 2017).
  8. Ford, R. A., Price, W. & Nicholson, I. I. Privacy and accountability in black-box medicine. Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 23, 1 (2016).
  9. McMahan, H. B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., Hampson, S. & y Arcas, B. A. in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS) 1273–1282 (Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 2017).
  10. Bejnordi, B. E. et al. in 2017 IEEE 14th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2017) 929–932 (Melbourne, Australia, 2017).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

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