Training opportunities of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
The aim is to offer an overview of the existing training programs and critically examine them and suggest avenues for further development of AI training programs for radiologists.Methods
Deductive thematic analysis of 100 training programs offered in 2019 and 2020 (until June 30). We analyze the public data about the training programs based on their "contents," "target audience," "instructors and offering agents," and "legitimization strategies."Results
There are many AI training programs offered to radiologists, yet most of them (80%) are short, stand-alone sessions, which are not part of a longer-term learning trajectory. The training programs mainly (around 85%) focus on the basic concepts of AI and are offered in passive mode. Professional institutions and commercial companies are active in offering the programs (91%), though academic institutes are limitedly involved.Conclusions
There is a need to further develop systematic training programs that are pedagogically integrated into radiology curriculum. Future training programs need to further focus on learning how to work with AI at work and be further specialized and customized to the contexts of radiology work.Key points
• Most of AI training programs are short, stand-alone sessions, which focus on the basics of AI. • The content of training programs focuses on medical and technical topics; managerial, legal, and ethical topics are marginally addressed. • Professional institutions and commercial companies are active in offering AI training; academic institutes are limitedly involved.
SUBMITTER: Schuur F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8270863 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesWhy is there a major gap between the promises of AI and its applications in the domain of diagnostic radiology? To answer this question, we systematically review and critically analyze the AI applications in the radiology domain.MethodsWe systematically analyzed these applications based on their focal modality and anatomic region as well as their stage of development, technical infrastructure, and approval.ResultsWe identified 269 AI applications in the diagnostic radiology domain, offered by 99 companies. We show that AI applications are primarily narrow in terms of tasks, modality, and anatomic region. A majority of the available AI functionalities focus on supporting the "perception" and "reasoning" in the radiology workflow.ConclusionsThereby, we contribute by (1) offering a systematic framework for analyzing and mapping the technological developments in the diagnostic radiology domain, (2) providing empirical evidence regarding the landscape of AI applications, and (3) offering insights into the current state of AI applications. Accordingly, we discuss the potential impacts of AI applications on the radiology work and we highlight future possibilities for developing these applications.Key points• Many AI applications are introduced to the radiology domain and their number and diversity grow very fast. • Most of the AI applications are narrow in terms of modality, body part, and pathology. • A lot of applications focus on supporting "perception" and "reasoning" tasks.
| S-EPMC7979626 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThere has been a large amount of research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) as applied to clinical radiology. However, these studies vary in design and quality and systematic reviews of the entire field are lacking.This systematic review aimed to identify all papers that used deep learning in radiology to survey the literature and to evaluate their methods. We aimed to identify the key questions being addressed in the literature and to identify the most effective methods employed.MethodsWe followed the PRISMA guidelines and performed a systematic review of studies of AI in radiology published from 2015 to 2019. Our published protocol was prospectively registered.ResultsOur search yielded 11,083 results. Seven hundred sixty-seven full texts were reviewed, and 535 articles were included. Ninety-eight percent were retrospective cohort studies. The median number of patients included was 460. Most studies involved MRI (37%). Neuroradiology was the most common subspecialty. Eighty-eight percent used supervised learning. The majority of studies undertook a segmentation task (39%). Performance comparison was with a state-of-the-art model in 37%. The most used established architecture was UNet (14%). The median performance for the most utilised evaluation metrics was Dice of 0.89 (range .49-.99), AUC of 0.903 (range 1.00-0.61) and Accuracy of 89.4 (range 70.2-100). Of the 77 studies that externally validated their results and allowed for direct comparison, performance on average decreased by 6% at external validation (range increase of 4% to decrease 44%).ConclusionThis systematic review has surveyed the major advances in AI as applied to clinical radiology.Key points• While there are many papers reporting expert-level results by using deep learning in radiology, most apply only a narrow range of techniques to a narrow selection of use cases. • The literature is dominated by retrospective cohort studies with limited external validation with high potential for bias. • The recent advent of AI extensions to systematic reporting guidelines and prospective trial registration along with a focus on external validation and explanations show potential for translation of the hype surrounding AI from code to clinic.
| S-EPMC9668941 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective was to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in clinical radiology in The Netherlands.Materials and methodsUsing an embedded multiple case study, an exploratory, qualitative research design was followed. Data collection consisted of 24 semi-structured interviews from seven Dutch hospitals. The analysis of barriers and facilitators was guided by the recently published Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework for new medical technologies in healthcare organizations.ResultsAmong the most important facilitating factors for implementation were the following: (i) pressure for cost containment in the Dutch healthcare system, (ii) high expectations of AI's potential added value, (iii) presence of hospital-wide innovation strategies, and (iv) presence of a "local champion." Among the most prominent hindering factors were the following: (i) inconsistent technical performance of AI applications, (ii) unstructured implementation processes, (iii) uncertain added value for clinical practice of AI applications, and (iv) large variance in acceptance and trust of direct (the radiologists) and indirect (the referring clinicians) adopters.ConclusionIn order for AI applications to contribute to the improvement of the quality and efficiency of clinical radiology, implementation processes need to be carried out in a structured manner, thereby providing evidence on the clinical added value of AI applications.Key points• Successful implementation of AI in radiology requires collaboration between radiologists and referring clinicians. • Implementation of AI in radiology is facilitated by the presence of a local champion. • Evidence on the clinical added value of AI in radiology is needed for successful implementation.
| S-EPMC7476917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThere has been a recent explosion of research into the field of artificial intelligence as applied to clinical radiology with the advent of highly accurate computer vision technology. These studies, however, vary significantly in design and quality. While recent guidelines have been established to advise on ethics, data management and the potential directions of future research, systematic reviews of the entire field are lacking. We aim to investigate the use of artificial intelligence as applied to radiology, to identify the clinical questions being asked, which methodological approaches are applied to these questions and trends in use over time.Methods and analysisWe will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and by the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. We will perform a literature search through MEDLINE (Pubmed), and EMBASE, a detailed data extraction of trial characteristics and a narrative synthesis of the data. There will be no language restrictions. We will take a task-centred approach rather than focusing on modality or clinical subspecialty. Sub-group analysis will be performed by segmentation tasks, identification tasks, classification tasks, pegression/prediction tasks as well as a sub-analysis for paediatric patients.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be required for this study, as data will be obtained from publicly available clinical trials. We will disseminate our results in a peer-reviewed publication. Registration number PROSPERO: CRD42020154790.
| S-EPMC7726044 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As artificial intelligence (AI) systems begin to make their way into clinical radiology practice, it is crucial to assure that they function correctly and that they gain the trust of experts. Toward this goal, approaches to make AI "interpretable" have gained attention to enhance the understanding of a machine learning algorithm, despite its complexity. This article aims to provide insights into the current state of the art of interpretability methods for radiology AI. This review discusses radiologists' opinions on the topic and suggests trends and challenges that need to be addressed to effectively streamline interpretability methods in clinical practice. Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2020 See also the commentary by Gastounioti and Kontos in this issue.
| S-EPMC7259808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The interest in artificial intelligence (AI) has ballooned within radiology in the past few years primarily due to notable successes of deep learning. With the advances brought by deep learning, AI has the potential to recognize and localize complex patterns from different radiological imaging modalities, many of which even achieve comparable performance to human decision-making in recent applications. In this chapter, we review several AI applications in radiology for different anatomies: chest, abdomen, pelvis, as well as general lesion detection/identification that is not limited to specific anatomies. For each anatomy site, we focus on introducing the tasks of detection, segmentation, and classification with an emphasis on describing the technology development pathway with the aim of providing the reader with an understanding of what AI can do in radiology and what still needs to be done for AI to better fit in radiology. Combining with our own research experience of AI in medicine, we elaborate how AI can enrich knowledge discovery, understanding, and decision-making in radiology, rather than replacing the radiologist.
| S-EPMC7484814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Early diagnosis of tumor metastasis is crucial for clinical treatment. Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown great promise in the field of medicine. We therefore aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of AI algorithms in detecting tumor metastasis using medical radiology imaging. Methods We searched PubMed and Web of Science for studies published from January 1, 1997, to January 30, 2020. Studies evaluating an AI model for the diagnosis of tumor metastasis from medical images were included. We excluded studies that used histopathology images or medical wave-form data and those focused on the region segmentation of interest. Studies providing enough information to construct contingency tables were included in a meta-analysis. Findings We identified 2620 studies, of which 69 were included. Among them, 34 studies were included in a meta-analysis with a pooled sensitivity of 82% (95% CI 79–84%), specificity of 84% (82–87%) and AUC of 0·90 (0·87–0·92). Analysis for different AI algorithms showed a pooled sensitivity of 87% (83–90%) for machine learning and 86% (82–89%) for deep learning, and a pooled specificity of 89% (82–93%) for machine learning, and 87% (82–91%) for deep learning. Interpretation AI algorithms may be used for the diagnosis of tumor metastasis using medical radiology imaging with equivalent or even better performance to health-care professionals, in terms of sensitivity and specificity. At the same time, rigorous reporting standards with external validation and comparison to health-care professionals are urgently needed for AI application in the medical field. Funding College students' innovative entrepreneurial training plan program .
| S-EPMC7773591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeArtificial intelligence (AI) for reading breast screening mammograms could potentially replace (some) human-reading and improve screening effectiveness. This systematic review aims to identify and quantify the types of AI errors to better understand the consequences of implementing this technology.MethodsElectronic databases were searched for external validation studies of the accuracy of AI algorithms in real-world screening mammograms. Descriptive synthesis was performed on error types and frequency. False negative proportions (FNP) and false positive proportions (FPP) were pooled within AI positivity thresholds using random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsSeven retrospective studies (447,676 examinations; published 2019-2022) met inclusion criteria. Five studies reported AI error as false negatives or false positives. Pooled FPP decreased incrementally with increasing positivity threshold (71.83% [95% CI 69.67, 73.90] at Transpara 3 to 10.77% [95% CI 8.34, 13.79] at Transpara 9). Pooled FNP increased incrementally from 0.02% [95% CI 0.01, 0.03] (Transpara 3) to 0.12% [95% CI 0.06, 0.26] (Transpara 9), consistent with a trade-off with FPP. Heterogeneity within thresholds reflected algorithm version and completeness of the reference standard. Other forms of AI error were reported rarely (location error and technical error in one study each).ConclusionAI errors are largely interpreted in the framework of test accuracy. FP and FN errors show expected variability not only by positivity threshold, but also by algorithm version and study quality. Reporting of other forms of AI errors is sparse, despite their potential implications for adoption of the technology. Considering broader types of AI error would add nuance to reporting that can inform inferences about AI's utility.
| S-EPMC11230971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rational Deep learning (DL) has demonstrated a remarkable performance in diagnostic imaging for various diseases and modalities and therefore has a high potential to be used as a clinical tool. However, current practice shows low deployment of these algorithms in clinical practice, because DL algorithms lack transparency and trust due to their underlying black-box mechanism. For successful employment, explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) could be introduced to close the gap between the medical professionals and the DL algorithms. In this literature review, XAI methods available for magnetic resonance (MR), computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET) imaging are discussed and future suggestions are made. Methods PubMed, Embase.com and Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection were screened. Articles were considered eligible for inclusion if XAI was used (and well described) to describe the behavior of a DL model used in MR, CT and PET imaging. Results A total of 75 articles were included of which 54 and 17 articles described post and ad hoc XAI methods, respectively, and 4 articles described both XAI methods. Major variations in performance is seen between the methods. Overall, post hoc XAI lacks the ability to provide class-discriminative and target-specific explanation. Ad hoc XAI seems to tackle this because of its intrinsic ability to explain. However, quality control of the XAI methods is rarely applied and therefore systematic comparison between the methods is difficult. Conclusion There is currently no clear consensus on how XAI should be deployed in order to close the gap between medical professionals and DL algorithms for clinical implementation. We advocate for systematic technical and clinical quality assessment of XAI methods. Also, to ensure end-to-end unbiased and safe integration of XAI in clinical workflow, (anatomical) data minimization and quality control methods should be included.
| S-EPMC10213317 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AlphaFold has burst into our lives. A powerful algorithm that underscores the strength of biological sequence data and artificial intelligence (AI). AlphaFold has appended projects and research directions. The database it has been creating promises an untold number of applications with vast potential impacts that are still difficult to surmise. AI approaches can revolutionize personalized treatments and usher in better-informed clinical trials. They promise to make giant leaps toward reshaping and revamping drug discovery strategies, selecting and prioritizing combinations of drug targets. Here, we briefly overview AI in structural biology, including in molecular dynamics simulations and prediction of microbiota-human protein-protein interactions. We highlight the advancements accomplished by the deep-learning-powered AlphaFold in protein structure prediction and their powerful impact on the life sciences. At the same time, AlphaFold does not resolve the decades-long protein folding challenge, nor does it identify the folding pathways. The models that AlphaFold provides do not capture conformational mechanisms like frustration and allostery, which are rooted in ensembles, and controlled by their dynamic distributions. Allostery and signaling are properties of populations. AlphaFold also does not generate ensembles of intrinsically disordered proteins and regions, instead describing them by their low structural probabilities. Since AlphaFold generates single ranked structures, rather than conformational ensembles, it cannot elucidate the mechanisms of allosteric activating driver hotspot mutations nor of allosteric drug resistance. However, by capturing key features, deep learning techniques can use the single predicted conformation as the basis for generating a diverse ensemble.
| S-EPMC9442638 | biostudies-literature