Cited by 19Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIRadiology practices and education

Imaging Artificial Intelligence: A Framework for Radiologists to Address Health Equity, From the AJR Special Series on DEI

Open access
Davis, Melissa A., Lim, Nicholas, Jordan, John, Yee, Judy, Gichoya, Judy Wawira, Lee, Ryan·2023·American Journal of Roentgenology

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) holds promise for helping patients access new and individualized health care pathways while increasing efficiencies for health care practitioners. Radiology has been at the forefront of this technology in medicine; many radiology practices are implementing and trialing AI-focused products. AI also holds great promise for reducing health disparities and promoting health equity. Radiology is ideally positioned to help reduce disparities given its central and critical role in patient care. The purposes of this article are to discuss the potential benefits and pitfalls of deploying AI algorithms in radiology, specifically highlighting the impact of AI on health equity; to explore ways to mitigate drivers of inequity; and to enhance pathways for creating better health care for all individuals, centering on a practical framework that helps radiologists address health equity during deployment of new tools.

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 · 10.2214/ajr.22.28802

Cites

69 of 69 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?

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: 2

  1. Christensen DM, Manley J, Resendez J. Medical algorithms are failing com- munities of color. Health Affairs Forefront website. www.healthaffairs.org/ do/10.1377/forefront.20210903.976632/full/. Published Sep 9, 2021. Accessed Jan 8, 2023 · DOI
  2. Ashley L, Armitage G, Neary M, Hollingsworth G. A practical guide to fail- ure mode and effects analysis in health care: making the most of the team and its meetings. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2010; 36:351-358

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davis, M. A., Lim, N., Jordan, J., Yee, J., Gichoya, J. W., & Lee, R.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
  • Emory University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Roentgenology
Published
2023-09
Volume
221
Issue
3
Pages
302-308
ISSN
  • 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 0361-803X
  • 1546-3141
OpenAlex
W4321495293
Cited by
19
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2
FWCI
0.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Roentgenology (publishedVersion)
  • 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, health equity, health disparities, radiologists, algorithmic bias, diversity, equity, and inclusion, radiology practice
MeSH terms
Health Equity, Radiologists, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, 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