Cited by 154Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Artificial Intelligence in Radiology—Ethical Considerations

Open access
Brady, Adrian P., Neri, Emanuele·2020·Diagnostics

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to change much about the way we practice radiology in the near future. The power of AI tools has the potential to offer substantial benefit to patients. Conversely, there are dangers inherent in the deployment of AI in radiology, if this is done without regard to possible ethical risks. Some ethical issues are obvious; others are less easily discerned, and less easily avoided. This paper explains some of the ethical difficulties of which we are presently aware, and some of the measures we may take to protect against misuse of AI.

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 · 10.3390/diagnostics10040231

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

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?

  • There is a risk that AI algorithms may ignore specific differences, such as gender and race, which can lead to bias because of the heterogeneity between the training set and other patients.

    “There is a risk that AI algorithms may ignore specific differences, such as gender and race, which can lead to bias because of the heterogeneity between the training set and other patients 35-37.”

    From Artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer (2022) · cites this paper as [37]

  • It is difficult to assign liability for medical malpractice arising from defects in AI.

    “Also, it is difficult to assign liability for medical malpractice arising from defects in AI 37,38.”

    From Artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer (2022) · cites this paper as [37]

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: 1

  1. [20]Gary S. The AI Delusion Oxford University Press Oxford, UK 2018 149 150

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brady, A. P., & Neri, E.
Affiliations
  • European Society of Radiology (AT)
  • University of Pisa (IT)
Corresponding author
Brady, Adrian P.
Venue
Diagnostics
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-04-17
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
231
ISSN
2075-4418 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3016902347
Cited by
150
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4
FWCI
4.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diagnostics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial research information system (University of Pisa) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion)
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 radiology, medical ethics, ethical risks of AI, AI misuse, patient benefit

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