CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Ethical Considerations for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging: Deployment and Governance

Open access
Herington, Jonathan, McCradden, Melissa D., Creel, Kathleen, Boellaard, Ronald, Jones, Elizabeth C., Jha, Abhinav K., Rahmim, Arman, Scott, Peter J.H. +4 more·2023·Journal of Nuclear Medicine
DOI 10.2967/jnumed.123.266110
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to make nuclear medicine and medical imaging faster, cheaper, and both more effective and more accessible. This is possible, however, only if clinicians and patients feel that these AI medical devices (AIMDs) are trustworthy. Highlighting the need to ensure health justice by fairly distributing benefits and burdens while respecting individual patients' rights, the AI Task Force of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging has identified 4 major ethical risks that arise during the deployment of AIMD: autonomy of patients and clinicians, transparency of clinical performance and limitations, fairness toward marginalized populations, and accountability of physicians and developers. We provide preliminary recommendations for governing these ethical risks to realize the promise of AIMD for patients and populations.

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 · 10.2967/jnumed.123.266110

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • When AI is used in research with human participation or data, ethical implications require close consideration by Human Research Ethics Committees.

    “When AI is used in research with human participation or data, ethical implications require close consideration by Human Research Ethics Committees, also known as Institutional Review Boards (Herington et al., 2023;Zhou & Chen, 2023).”

    From A university framework for the responsible use of generative AI in research (2026) · cites this paper as Herington et al., 2023

    The Abstract identifies ethical risks involving patients and says this paper focuses on clinicians’ and regulators’ obligations during AI deployment. It assigns researchers’ duties during data collection and development to a companion paper. The cited paper supports the general need to consider AI ethics, but the passages do not say that Human Research Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Boards should review research involving participants or their data. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 40

  1. Saboury B, Bradshaw T, Boellaard R, et al. Artificial intelligence in nuclear medi- cine: opportunities, challenges, and responsibilities toward a trustworthy ecosys- tem. J Nucl Med. 2023;64:188-196.
  2. Currie G, Hawk KE. Ethical and legal challenges of artificial intelligence in nuclear medicine. Semin Nucl Med. 2021;51:120-125.
  3. Currie G, Hawk KE, Rohren EM. Ethical principles for the application of artifi- cial intelligence (AI) in nuclear medicine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020; 47:748-752.
  4. Geis JR, Brady A, Wu CC, et al. Ethics of artificial intelligence in radiology: sum- mary of the joint European and North American multisociety statement. Insights Imaging. 2019;10:101.
  5. Mach JC, Omar A, Abujudeh H. Public health foundations for radiology resident education: healthcare disparities in radiology. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2022;51: 403-407.
  6. Cho JK, Zafar HM, Lalevic D, Cook TS. Patient factor disparities in imaging follow-up rates after incidental abdominal findings. AJR. 2019;212:589-595.
  7. Bucknor MD, Lichtensztajn DY, Lin TK, Borno HT, Gomez SL, Hope TA. Dispa- rities in PET imaging for prostate cancer at a tertiary academic medical center. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:695-699.
  8. Herington J, McCradden MD, Creel K, et al. Ethical considerations for artificial intelligence in medical imaging: data collection, development, and evaluation. J Nucl Med. In press.
  9. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 8th ed. Oxford Uni- versity Press; 2019.
  10. Herington J, Tanona S. The social risks of science. Hastings Cent Rep. 2020;50: 27-38.
  11. Jha AK, Bradshaw TJ, Buvat I, et al. Nuclear medicine and artificial intelligence: best practices for evaluation (the RELAINCE guidelines). J Nucl Med. 2022;63: 1288-1299.
  12. Yang J, Sohn JH, Behr SC, Gullberg GT, Seo Y. CT-less direct correction of atten- uation and scatter in the image space using deep learning for whole-body FDG PET: potential benefits and pitfalls. Radiol Artif Intell. 2020;3:e200137.
  13. Shen J, Zhang CJP, Jiang B, et al. Artificial intelligence versus clinicians in disease diagnosis: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform. 2019;7:e10010.
  14. McCradden MD, Kirsch RE. Patient wisdom should be incorporated into health AI to avoid algorithmic paternalism. Nat Med. 2023;29:765-766.
  15. US Preventive Services Task Force, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;319:1901-1913.
  16. Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S. Disadvantages of using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to assess imaging tests: a discussion and proposal for an alternative approach. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:932-939.
  17. Birch J, Creel KA, Jha AK, Plutynski A. Clinical decisions using AI must consider patient values. Nat Med. 2022;28:229-232.
  18. Liu Z, Mhlanga JC, Laforest R, Derenoncourt P-R, Siegel BA, Jha AK. A Bayesian approach to tissue-fraction estimation for oncological PET segmentation. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66:10.1088/1361-6560/ac01f4. · DOI
  19. Bradshaw TJ, Boellaard R, Dutta J, et al. Nuclear medicine and artificial intelli- gence: best practices for algorithm development. J Nucl Med. 2022;63:500-510.
  20. Wale JL, Thomas S, Hamerlijnck D, Hollander R. Patients and public are important stakeholders in health technology assessment but the level of involvement is low: a call to action. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7:1.
  21. Ferretti A, Schneider M, Blasimme A. Machine learning in medicine: opening the new data protection black box. Eur Data Protection Law Rev. 2018;4:320-332.
  22. Amann J, Blasimme A, Vayena E, Frey D, Madai VI; Precise4Q consortium. Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: a multidisciplinary perspec- tive. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020;20:310.
  23. Tonekaboni S, Joshi S, McCradden MD, Goldenberg A. What clinicians want: contextualizing explainable machine learning for clinical end use. In: Proceed- ings of the 4th Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference. PMLR; 2019: 359-380.
  24. Ghassemi M, Naumann T, Schulam P, Beam AL, Chen IY, Ranganath R. A review of challenges and opportunities in machine learning for health. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc. 2020;2020:191-200.
  25. London AJ. Artificial intelligence and black-box medical decisions: accuracy ver- sus explainability. Hastings Cent Rep. 2019;49:15-21.
  26. Bromwich D, Millum J. Disclosure and consent to medical research participation. J Moral Philos. 2013;10:195-219.
  27. Chen IY, Pierson E, Rose S, Joshi S, Ferryman K, Ghassemi M. Ethical machine learning in healthcare. Annu Rev Biomed Data Sci. 2021;4:123-144.
  28. Schrager JD, Patzer RE, Kim JJ, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in diagnostic imaging utilization during adult emergency department visits in the United States, 2005 to 2014. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16:1036-1045.
  29. Grobman WA, Sandoval G, Rice MM, et al. Prediction of vaginal birth after cesar- ean delivery in term gestations: a calculator without race and ethnicity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;225:664.e1-664.e7.
  30. Root M. The use of race in medicine as a proxy for genetic differences. Philos Sci. 2003;70:1173-1183.
  31. Tice JA, Miglioretti DL, Li C-S, Vachon CM, Gard CC, Kerlikowske K. Breast density and benign breast disease: risk assessment to identify women at high risk of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3137-3143.
  32. McCradden MD, Joshi S, Mazwi M, Anderson JA. Ethical limitations of algorith- mic fairness solutions in health care machine learning. Lancet Digit Health. 2020; 2:e221-e223.
  33. Herington J. Measuring fairness in an unfair world. In: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. Association for Computing Machinery; 2020:286-292.
  34. Jha AK, Myers KJ, Obuchowski NA, et al. Objective task-based evaluation of arti- ficial intelligence-based medical imaging methods: framework, strategies, and role of the physician. PET Clin. 2021;16:493-511.
  35. Morris MA, Saboury B. Access to imaging technology in global health. In: Mollura DJ, Culp MP, Lungren MP, eds. Radiology in Global Health: Strategies, Imple- mentation, and Applications. Springer International Publishing; 2019:15-33.
  36. Mollura DJ, Shah N, Mazal J. White paper report of the 2013 RAD-AID confer- ence: improving radiology in resource-limited regions and developing countries. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11:913-919.
  37. Minssen T, Mimler M, Mak V. When does stand-alone software qualify as a medical device in the European Union? The CJEU's decision in SNITEM and what it implies for the next generation of medical devices. Med Law Rev. 2020;28:615-624.
  38. Price WN II. Artificial intelligence in health care: applications and legal implica- tions. The SciTech Lawyer. 2017;14:10-13.
  39. Asan O, Bayrak AE, Choudhury A. Artificial intelligence and human trust in healthcare: focus on clinicians. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e15154.
  40. Yanisky-Ravid S, Hallisey SK. "Equality and privacy by design": a new model of artificial intelligence data transparency via auditing, certification, and safe harbor regimes. Fordham Urban Law J. 2019;46:428-486.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Herington, J., McCradden, M. D., Creel, K., Boellaard, R., Jones, E. C., Jha, A. K., Rahmim, A., Scott, P. J. H., Sunderland, J. J., Wahl, R. L., Zuehlsdorff, S., & Saboury, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • Siemens Healthcare (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Publisher
Society of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2023-08-24
Volume
64
Issue
10
Pages
1509-1515
ISSN
  • 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-662X
DOI
10.2967/jnumed.123.266110
OpenAlex
W4386135236
Cited by
61
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 4
FWCI
2.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB021155, R01EB031051)
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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
artificial intelligence in medical imaging, AI medical devices, ethical risks, AI governance, patient autonomy, transparency, algorithmic fairness, health justice, accountability, nuclear medicine, molecular imaging, trust in AI
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Nuclear Medicine, Physicians, Advisory Committees, Molecular Imaging

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