Cited by 52Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIRadiology practices and education

The ethical adoption of artificial intelligence in radiology

Open access
Mudgal, Keshav Shree, Das, Neelanjan·2020·BJR|Open

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare—with radiology at the pioneering forefront. To be trustfully adopted, AI needs to be lawful, ethical and robust. This article covers the different aspects of a safe and sustainable deployment of AI in radiology during: training, integration and regulation. For training, data must be appropriately valued, and deals with AI companies must be centralized. Companies must clearly define anonymization and consent, and patients must be well-informed about their data usage. Data fed into algorithms must be made AI-ready by refining, purification, digitization and centralization. Finally, data must represent various demographics. AI needs to be safely integrated with radiologists-in-the-loop: guiding forming concepts of AI solutions and supervising training and feedback. To be well-regulated, AI systems must be approved by a health authority and agreements must be made upon liability for errors, roles of supervised and unsupervised AI and fair workforce distribution (between AI and radiologists), with a renewal of policy at regular intervals. Any errors made must have a root-cause analysis, with outcomes fedback to companies to close the loop—thus enabling a dynamic best prediction system. In the distant future, AI may act autonomously with little human supervision. Ethical training and integration can ensure a "transparent" technology that will allow insight: helping us reflect on our current understanding of imaging interpretation and fill knowledge gaps, eventually moulding radiological practice. This article proposes recommendations for ethical practise that can guide a nationalized framework to build a sustainable and transparent system.

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 · 10.1259/bjro.20190020

Cites

17 of 17 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

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: 5

  1. [34]University of Oxford National Consortium of intelligent medical imaging.
  2. [56]Rajpurkar P, Irvin J, Bagul A, Ding D, Duan T, Mehta H. MURA: Large Dataset for Abnormality Detection in Musculoskeletal Radiographs. 2017. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06957. · arXiv
  3. [60]Medium. Machine learning and the market for intelligence conference held by creative destruction lab in Toronto. Accessed 11/08/2019.
  4. [79]Brown TB, Mané D, Roy A, Abadi M, Gilmer J. Adversarial Patch. 2017. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.09665. · arXiv
  5. [81]Cadwalladr C, Graham-Harrison E. Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The Observer, 2018. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/2014573719.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mudgal, K. S., & Das, N.
Affiliations
  • King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • East Kent Hospitals Foundation Trust, Canterbury, UK
Corresponding author
Mudgal, Keshav Shree
Venue
BJR|Open
Published
2020-11-01
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
20190020
ISSN
2513-9878 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2991302197
Cited by
52
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BJR|Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
Keywords
artificial intelligence in radiology, AI ethics, AI regulation, informed consent, data quality, demographic representativeness, liability for AI errors, root cause analysis, AI governance, AI autonomy

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