Search

Artificial intelligence (AI) carries the potential for unprecedented disruption in radiology, with possible positive and negative consequences. The integration of AI in radiology holds the potential to revolutionize healthcare practices by advancing diagnosis, quantification, and management of multiple medical conditions. Nevertheless, the ever-growing availability of AI tools in radiology highlights an increasing need to critically evaluate claims for its utility and to differentiate safe product offerings from potentially harmful, or fundamentally unhelpful ones. This multi-society paper, presenting the views of Radiology Societies in the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, defines the potential practical problems and ethical issues surrounding the incorporation of AI into radiological practice. In addition to delineating the main points of concern that developers, regulators, and purchasers of AI tools should consider prior to their introduction into clinical practice, this statement also suggests methods to monitor their stability and safety in clinical use, and their suitability for possible autonomous function. This statement is intended to serve as a useful summary of the practical issues which should be considered by all parties involved in the development of radiology AI resources, and their implementation as clinical tools. KEY POINTS., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) into radiology promises to enhance efficiency and improve diagnostic accuracy, yet it also raises manifold ethical questions. These include data protection issues, the future role of radiologists, liability when using AI systems, and the avoidance of bias. To prevent data bias, the datasets need to be compiled carefully and to be representative of the target population. Accordingly, the upcoming European Union AI act sets particularly high requirements for the datasets used in training medical AI systems. Cognitive bias occurs when radiologists place too much trust in the results provided by AI systems (overreliance). So far, diagnostic AI systems are used almost exclusively as "second look" systems. If diagnostic AI systems are to be used in the future as "first look" systems or even as autonomous AI systems in order to enhance efficiency in radiology, the question of liability needs to be addressed, comparable to liability for autonomous driving. Such use of AI would also significantly change the role of radiologists., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Background:  In recent years, AI has made significant advancements in medical diagnosis and prognosis. However, the incorporation of AI into clinical practice is still challenging and under-appreciated. We aim to demonstrate a possible vertical integration approach to close the loop for AI-ready radiology., Method:  This study highlights the importance of two-way communication for AI-assisted radiology. As a key part of the methodology, it demonstrates the integration of AI systems into clinical practice with structured reports and AI visualization, giving more insight into the AI system. By integrating cooperative lifelong learning into the AI system, we ensure the long-term effectiveness of the AI system, while keeping the radiologist in the loop.  RESULTS:  We demonstrate the use of lifelong learning for AI systems by incorporating AI visualization and structured reports. We evaluate Memory Aware-Synapses and Rehearsal approach and find that both approaches work in practice. Furthermore, we see the advantage of lifelong learning algorithms that do not require the storing or maintaining of samples from previous datasets., Conclusion:  In conclusion, incorporating AI into the clinical routine of radiology requires a two-way communication approach and seamless integration of the AI system, which we achieve with structured reports and visualization of the insight gained by the model. Closing the loop for radiology leads to successful integration, enabling lifelong learning for the AI system, which is crucial for sustainable long-term performance., Key Points:   · The integration of AI systems into the clinical routine with structured reports and AI visualization.. · Two-way communication between AI and radiologists is necessary to enable AI that keeps the radiologist in the loop.. · Closing the loop enables lifelong learning, which is crucial for long-term, high-performing AI in radiology.., Competing Interests: The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Phillip Matthies is an Employee of Smart Reporting GmbH., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To investigate the model-, code-, and data-sharing practices in the current radiomics research landscape and to introduce a radiomics research database., Methods: A total of 1254 articles published between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, in leading radiology journals (European Radiology, European Journal of Radiology, Radiology, Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging, Radiology: Imaging Cancer) were retrospectively screened, and 257 original research articles were included in this study. The categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact tests or chi-square test and numerical variables using Student's t test with relation to the year of publication., Results: Half of the articles (128 of 257) shared the model by either including the final model formula or reporting the coefficients of selected radiomics features. A total of 73 (28%) models were validated on an external independent dataset. Only 16 (6%) articles shared the data or used publicly available open datasets. Similarly, only 20 (7%) of the articles shared the code. A total of 7 (3%) articles both shared code and data. All collected data in this study is presented in a radiomics research database (RadBase) and could be accessed at https://github.com/EuSoMII/RadBase ., Conclusion: According to the results of this study, the majority of published radiomics models were not technically reproducible since they shared neither model nor code and data. There is still room for improvement in carrying out reproducible and open research in the field of radiomics., Clinical Relevance Statement: To date, the reproducibility of radiomics research and open science practices within the radiomics research community are still very low. Ensuring reproducible radiomics research with model-, code-, and data-sharing practices will facilitate faster clinical translation., Key Points: • There is a discrepancy between the number of published radiomics papers and the clinical implementation of these published radiomics models. • The main obstacle to clinical implementation is the lack of model-, code-, and data-sharing practices. • In order to translate radiomics research into clinical practice, the radiomics research community should adopt open science practices., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) carries the potential for unprecedented disruption in radiology, with possible positive and negative consequences. The integration of AI in radiology holds the potential to revolutionize healthcare practices by advancing diagnosis, quantification, and management of multiple medical conditions. Nevertheless, the ever-growing availability of AI tools in radiology highlights an increasing need to critically evaluate claims for its utility and to differentiate safe product offerings from potentially harmful, or fundamentally unhelpful ones. This multi-society paper, presenting the views of Radiology Societies in the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, defines the potential practical problems and ethical issues surrounding the incorporation of AI into radiological practice. In addition to delineating the main points of concern that developers, regulators, and purchasers of AI tools should consider prior to their introduction into clinical practice, this statement also suggests methods to monitor their stability and safety in clinical use, and their suitability for possible autonomous function. This statement is intended to serve as a useful summary of the practical issues which should be considered by all parties involved in the development of radiology AI resources, and their implementation as clinical tools. This article is simultaneously published in Insights into Imaging (DOI 10.1186/s13244-023-01541-3), Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology (DOI 10.1111/1754-9485.13612), Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (DOI 10.1177/08465371231222229), Journal of the American College of Radiology (DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.12.005), and Radiology: Artificial Intelligence (DOI 10.1148/ryai.230513). Artificial Intelligence, Radiology, Automation, Machine Learning Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. ©The Author(s) 2024. Editor's Note: The RSNA Board of Directors has endorsed this article. It has not undergone review or editing by this journal.Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Radiology, Automation, Machine Learning Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. ©The Author(s) 2024. Editor's Note: The RSNA Board of Directors has endorsed this article. It has not undergone review or editing by this journal.

Background: The hype around artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology continues and the number of approved AI tools is growing steadily. Despite the great potential, integration into clinical routine in radiology remains limited. In addition, the large number of individual applications poses a challenge for clinical routine, as individual applications have to be selected for different questions and organ systems, which increases the complexity and time required., Objectives: This review will discuss the current status of validation and implementation of AI tools in clinical routine, and identify possible approaches for an improved assessment of the generalizability of results of AI tools., Materials and Methods: A literature search in various literature and product databases as well as publications, position papers, and reports from various stakeholders was conducted for this review., Results: Scientific evidence and independent validation studies are available for only a few commercial AI tools and the generalizability of the results often remains questionable., Conclusions: One challenge is the multitude of offerings for individual, specific application areas by a large number of manufacturers, making integration into the existing site-specific IT infrastructure more difficult. Furthermore, remuneration for the use of AI tools in clinical routine by health insurance companies in Germany is lacking. But in order for reimbursement to be granted, the clinical utility of new applications must first be proven. Such proof, however, is lacking for most applications., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Background Automation bias (the propensity for humans to favor suggestions from automated decision-making systems) is a known source of error in human-machine interactions, but its implications regarding artificial intelligence (AI)-aided mammography reading are unknown. Purpose To determine how automation bias can affect inexperienced, moderately experienced, and very experienced radiologists when reading mammograms with the aid of an artificial intelligence (AI) system. Materials and Methods In this prospective experiment, 27 radiologists read 50 mammograms and provided their Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment assisted by a purported AI system. Mammograms were obtained between January 2017 and December 2019 and were presented in two randomized sets. The first was a training set of 10 mammograms, with the correct BI-RADS category suggested by the AI system. The second was a set of 40 mammograms in which an incorrect BI-RADS category was suggested for 12 mammograms. Reader performance, degree of bias in BI-RADS scoring, perceived accuracy of the AI system, and reader confidence in their own BI-RADS ratings were assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and repeated-measures ANOVA followed by post hoc tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests followed by the Dunn post hoc test. Results The percentage of correctly rated mammograms by inexperienced (mean, 79.7% ± 11.7 [SD] vs 19.8% ± 14.0; P < .001; r = 0.93), moderately experienced (mean, 81.3% ± 10.1 vs 24.8% ± 11.6; P < .001; r = 0.96), and very experienced (mean, 82.3% ± 4.2 vs 45.5% ± 9.1; P = .003; r = 0.97) radiologists was significantly impacted by the correctness of the AI prediction of BI-RADS category. Inexperienced radiologists were significantly more likely to follow the suggestions of the purported AI when it incorrectly suggested a higher BI-RADS category than the actual ground truth compared with both moderately (mean degree of bias, 4.0 ± 1.8 vs 2.4 ± 1.5; P = .044; r = 0.46) and very (mean degree of bias, 4.0 ± 1.8 vs 1.2 ± 0.8; P = .009; r = 0.65) experienced readers. Conclusion The results show that inexperienced, moderately experienced, and very experienced radiologists reading mammograms are prone to automation bias when being supported by an AI-based system. This and other effects of human and machine interaction must be considered to ensure safe deployment and accurate diagnostic performance when combining human readers and AI. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Baltzer in this issue.

In the field of computer science, known as artificial intelligence, algorithms imitate reasoning tasks that are typically performed by humans. The techniques that allow machines to learn and get better at tasks such as recognition and prediction, which form the basis of clinical practice, are referred to as machine learning, which is a subfield of artificial intelligence. The number of artificial intelligence-and machine learnings-related publications in clinical journals has grown exponentially, driven by recent developments in computation and the accessibility of simple tools. However, clinicians are often not included in data science teams, which may limit the clinical relevance, explanability, workflow compatibility, and quality improvement of artificial intelligence solutions. Thus, this results in the language barrier between clinicians and artificial intelligence developers. Healthcare practitioners sometimes lack a basic understanding of artificial intelligence research because the approach is difficult for non-specialists to understand. Furthermore, many editors and reviewers of medical publications might not be familiar with the fundamental ideas behind these technologies, which may prevent journals from publishing high-quality artificial intelligence studies or, worse still, could allow for the publication of low-quality works. In this review, we aim to improve readers’ artificial intelligence literacy and critical thinking. As a result, we concentrated on what we consider the 10 most important qualities of artificial intelligence research: valid scientific purpose, high-quality data set, robust reference standard, robust input, no information leakage, optimal bias-variance tradeoff, proper model evaluation, proven clinical utility, transparent reporting, and open science. Before designing a study, one should have defined a sound scientific purpose. Then, it should be backed by a high-quality data set, robust input, and a solid reference standard. The artificial intelligence development pipeline should prevent information leakage. For the models, optimal bias-variance tradeoff should be achieved, and generalizability assessment must be adequately performed. The clinical value of the final models must also be established. After the study, thought should be given to transparency in publishing the process and results as well as open science for sharing data, code, and models. We hope this work may improve the artificial intelligence literacy and mindset of the readers.

There has been an exponential rise in artificial intelligence (AI) research in imaging in recent years. While the dissemination of study data that has the potential to improve clinical practice is welcomed, the level of detail included in early AI research reporting has been highly variable and inconsistent, particularly when compared to more traditional clinical research. However, inclusion checklists are now commonly available and accessible to those writing or reviewing clinical research papers. AI-specific reporting guidelines also exist and include distinct requirements, but these can be daunting for radiologists new to the field. Given that pediatric radiology is a specialty faced with workforce shortages and an ever-increasing workload, AI could help by offering solutions to time-consuming tasks, thereby improving workflow efficiency and democratizing access to specialist opinion. As a result, pediatric radiologists are expected to be increasingly leading and contributing to AI imaging research, and researchers and clinicians alike should feel confident that the findings reported are presented in a transparent way, with sufficient detail to understand how they apply to wider clinical practice. In this review, we describe two of the most clinically relevant and available reporting guidelines to help increase awareness and engage the pediatric radiologist in conducting AI imaging research. This guide should also be useful for those reading and reviewing AI imaging research and as a checklist with examples of what to expect., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The emerging field of artificial intelligence (AI) will probably affect the practice for the next generation of doctors. However, the students' views on AI have not been largely investigated. Methods: An anonymous electronic survey on AI was designed for medical and dental students to explore: (1) sources of information about AI, (2) AI applications and concerns, (3) AI status as a topic in medicine, and (4) students' feelings and attitudes. The questionnaire was advertised on social media platforms in 2020. Security measures were employed to prevent fraudulent responses. Mann-Whitney U -test was employed for all comparisons. A sensitivity analysis was also performed by binarizing responses to express disagreement and agreement using the Chi-squared test. Results: Three thousand one hundred thirty-three respondents from 63 countries from all continents were included. Most respondents reported having at least a moderate understanding of the technologies underpinning AI and of their current application, with higher agreement associated with being male ( p < 0.0001), tech-savvy ( p < 0.0001), pre-clinical student ( p < 0.006), and from a developed country ( p < 0.04). Students perceive AI as a partner rather than a competitor (72.2%) with a higher agreement for medical students ( p = 0.002). The belief that AI will revolutionize medicine and dentistry (83.9%) with greater agreement for students from a developed country ( p = 0.0004) was noted. Most students agree that the AI developments will make medicine and dentistry more exciting (69.9%), that AI shall be part of the medical training (85.6%) and they are eager to incorporate AI in their future practice (99%). Conclusion: Currently, AI is a hot topic in medicine and dentistry. Students have a basic understanding of AI principles, a positive attitude toward AI and would like to have it incorporated into their training., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Bisdas, Topriceanu, Zakrzewska, Irimia, Shakallis, Subhash, Casapu, Leon-Rojas, Pinto dos Santos, Andrews, Zeicu, Bouhuwaish, Lestari, Abu-Ismail, Sadiq, Khamees, Mohammed, Williams, Omran, Ismail and Ebrahim.)

Background: There are a multitude of application possibilities of artificial intelligence (AI) and structured reporting (SR) in radiology. The number of scientific publications have continuously increased for many years. There is an extensive portfolio of available AI algorithms for, e.g. automatic detection and preselection of pathologic patterns in images or for facilitating the reporting workflows. Even machines already use AI algorithms for improvement of operating comfort., Method: The use of SR is essential especially for the extraction of automatically evaluable semantic data from radiology results reports. Regarding eligibility in certification processes, the use of SR is mandatory for the accreditation of the German Cancer Society as an oncological center or outside Germany, such as the European Cancer Center., Results: The data from SR can be automatically evaluated for the purpose of patient care, research and educational purposes and quality assurance. Lack of information and a high degree of variability often hamper the extraction of valid information from free-text reports using neurolinguistic programming (NLP). Against the background of supervised training, AI algorithms or k‑nearest neighbors (KNN) require a considerable amount of validated data. The semantic data from SR can also be processed by AI and used for training., Conclusion: The AI and SR are separate entities within the field of radiology with mutual dependencies and significant added value. Both have a high potential for profound upcoming changes and further developments in radiology., (© 2021. Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Artificial intelligence (AI) has made impressive progress over the past few years, including many applications in medical imaging. Numerous commercial solutions based on AI techniques are now available for sale, forcing radiology practices to learn how to properly assess these tools. While several guidelines describing good practices for conducting and reporting AI-based research in medicine and radiology have been published, fewer efforts have focused on recommendations addressing the key questions to consider when critically assessing AI solutions before purchase. Commercial AI solutions are typically complicated software products, for the evaluation of which many factors are to be considered. In this work, authors from academia and industry have joined efforts to propose a practical framework that will help stakeholders evaluate commercial AI solutions in radiology (the ECLAIR guidelines) and reach an informed decision. Topics to consider in the evaluation include the relevance of the solution from the point of view of each stakeholder, issues regarding performance and validation, usability and integration, regulatory and legal aspects, and financial and support services. KEY POINTS: • Numerous commercial solutions based on artificial intelligence techniques are now available for sale, and radiology practices have to learn how to properly assess these tools. • We propose a framework focusing on practical points to consider when assessing an AI solution in medical imaging, allowing all stakeholders to conduct relevant discussions with manufacturers and reach an informed decision as to whether to purchase an AI commercial solution for imaging applications. • Topics to consider in the evaluation include the relevance of the solution from the point of view of each stakeholder, issues regarding performance and validation, usability and integration, regulatory and legal aspects, and financial and support services.

Objectives: We investigated the attitudes of radiologists, information technology (IT) specialists, and industry representatives on artificial intelligence (AI) and its future impact on radiological work., Materials and Methods: During a national meeting for AI, eHealth, and IT infrastructure in 2019, we conducted a survey to obtain participants' attitudes. A total of 123 participants completed 28 items exploring AI usage in medicine. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to identify differences between radiologists, IT specialists, and industry representatives., Results: The strongest agreement between all respondents occurred with the following: plausibility checks are important to understand the decisions of the AI (93% agreement), validation of AI algorithms is mandatory (91%), and medicine becomes more efficient in the age of AI (86%). In contrast, only 25% of the respondents had confidence in the AI results, and only 17% believed that medicine will become more human through the use of AI. The answers were significantly different between the three professions for four items: relevance for protocol selection in cross-sectional imaging (p = 0.034), medical societies should be involved in validation (p = 0.028), patients should be informed about the use of AI (p = 0.047), and AI should be part of medical education (p = 0.026)., Conclusion: Currently, a discrepancy exists between high expectations for the future role of AI and low confidence in the results. This attitude was similar across all three groups. The demand for plausibility checks and the need to prove the usefulness in randomized controlled studies indicate what is needed in future research., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors of this paper declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article., (Copyright © 2020 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining increasing importance in many medical specialties, yet data on patients' opinions on the use of AI in medicine are scarce., Objective: This study aimed to investigate patients' opinions on the use of AI in different aspects of the medical workflow and the level of control and supervision under which they would deem the application of AI in medicine acceptable., Methods: Patients scheduled for computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging voluntarily participated in an anonymized questionnaire between February 10, 2020, and May 24, 2020. Patient information, confidence in physicians vs AI in different clinical tasks, opinions on the control of AI, preference in cases of disagreement between AI and physicians, and acceptance of the use of AI for diagnosing and treating diseases of different severity were recorded., Results: In total, 229 patients participated. Patients favored physicians over AI for all clinical tasks except for treatment planning based on current scientific evidence. In case of disagreement between physicians and AI regarding diagnosis and treatment planning, most patients preferred the physician's opinion to AI (96.2% [153/159] vs 3.8% [6/159] and 94.8% [146/154] vs 5.2% [8/154], respectively; P=.001). AI supervised by a physician was considered more acceptable than AI without physician supervision at diagnosis (confidence rating 3.90 [SD 1.20] vs 1.64 [SD 1.03], respectively; P=.001) and therapy (3.77 [SD 1.18] vs 1.57 [SD 0.96], respectively; P=.001)., Conclusions: Patients favored physicians over AI in most clinical tasks and strongly preferred an application of AI with physician supervision. However, patients acknowledged that AI could help physicians integrate the most recent scientific evidence into medical care. Application of AI in medicine should be disclosed and controlled to protect patient interests and meet ethical standards., (©Simon Lennartz, Thomas Dratsch, David Zopfs, Thorsten Persigehl, David Maintz, Nils Große Hokamp, Daniel Pinto dos Santos. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 17.02.2021.)

Summary: Artificial Intelligence (AI) carries the potential for unprecedented disruption in radiology, with possible positive and negative consequences. The integration of AI in radiology holds the potential to revolutionize healthcare practices by advancing diagnosis, quantification, and management of multiple medical conditions. Nevertheless, the ever‐growing availability of AI tools in radiology highlights an increasing need to critically evaluate claims for its utility and to differentiate safe product offerings from potentially harmful, or fundamentally unhelpful ones. This multi‐society paper, presenting the views of Radiology Societies in the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, defines the potential practical problems and ethical issues surrounding the incorporation of AI into radiological practice. In addition to delineating the main points of concern that developers, regulators, and purchasers of AI tools should consider prior to their introduction into clinical practice, this statement also suggests methods to monitor their stability and safety in clinical use, and their suitability for possible autonomous function. This statement is intended to serve as a useful summary of the practical issues which should be considered by all parties involved in the development of radiology AI resources, and their implementation as clinical tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Structured reporting in radiology continues to hold substantial potential to improve the quality of service provided to patients and referring physicians. Despite many physicians' preference for structured reports and various efforts by radiological societies and some vendors, structured reporting has still not been widely adopted in clinical routine. While in many countries national radiological societies have launched initiatives to further promote structured reporting, cross-institutional applications of report templates and incentives for usage of structured reporting are lacking. Various legislative measures have been taken in the USA and the European Union to promote interoperable data formats such as Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) in the context of the EU Health Data Space (EHDS) which will certainly be relevant for the future of structured reporting. Lastly, recent advances in artificial intelligence and large language models may provide innovative and efficient approaches to integrate structured reporting more seamlessly into the radiologists' workflow. The ESR will remain committed to advancing structured reporting as a key component towards more value-based radiology. Practical solutions for structured reporting need to be provided by vendors. Policy makers should incentivize the usage of structured radiological reporting, especially in cross-institutional setting. Critical relevance statement Over the past years, the benefits of structured reporting in radiology have been widely discussed and agreed upon; however, implementation in clinical routine is lacking due—policy makers should incentivize the usage of structured radiological reporting, especially in cross-institutional setting. Key points 1. Various national societies have established initiatives for structured reporting in radiology. 2. Almost no monetary or structural incentives exist that favor structured reporting. 3. A consensus on technical standards for structured reporting is still missing. 4. The application of large language models may help structuring radiological reports. 5. Policy makers should incentivize the usage of structured radiological reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Various studies have shown that medical professionals are prone to follow the incorrect suggestions offered by algorithms, especially when they have limited inputs to interrogate and interpret such suggestions and when they have an attitude of relying on them. We examine the effect of correct and incorrect algorithmic suggestions on the diagnosis performance of radiologists when (1) they have no, partial, and extensive informational inputs for explaining the suggestions (study 1) and (2) they are primed to hold a positive, negative, ambivalent, or neutral attitude towards AI (study 2). Our analysis of 2760 decisions made by 92 radiologists conducting 15 mammography examinations shows that radiologists' diagnoses follow both incorrect and correct suggestions, despite variations in the explainability inputs and attitudinal priming interventions. We identify and explain various pathways through which radiologists navigate through the decision process and arrive at correct or incorrect decisions. Overall, the findings of both studies show the limited effect of using explainability inputs and attitudinal priming for overcoming the influence of (incorrect) algorithmic suggestions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatment plans for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) are individually decided in tumor board meetings but some treatment decision-steps lack objective prognostic estimates. Our purpose was to explore the potential of radiomics for SCCHN therapy-specific survival prognostication and to increase the models' interpretability by ranking the features based on their predictive importance. Methods: We included 157 SCCHN patients (male, 119; female, 38; mean age, 64.39 ± 10.71 years) with baseline head and neck CT between 09/2014 and 08/2020 in this retrospective study. Patients were stratified according to their treatment. Using independent training and test datasets with cross-validation and 100 iterations, we identified, ranked and inter-correlated prognostic signatures using elastic net (EN) and random survival forest (RSF). We benchmarked the models against clinical parameters. Inter-reader variation was analyzed using intraclass-correlation coefficients (ICC). Results: EN and RSF achieved top prognostication performances of AUC = 0.795 (95% CI 0.767–0.822) and AUC = 0.811 (95% CI 0.782–0.839). RSF prognostication slightly outperformed the EN for the complete (ΔAUC 0.035, p = 0.002) and radiochemotherapy (ΔAUC 0.092, p < 0.001) cohort. RSF was superior to most clinical benchmarking (p ≤ 0.006). The inter-reader correlation was moderate or high for all features classes (ICC ≥ 0.77 (± 0.19)). Shape features had the highest prognostic importance, followed by texture features. Conclusions: EN and RSF built on radiomics features may be used for survival prognostication. The prognostically leading features may vary between treatment subgroups. This warrants further validation to potentially aid clinical treatment decision making in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This work proposes hybrid models combining time-series models (using linear functions) and artificial intelligence (using a nonlinear function) that can be used to provide monthly mean wind speed predictions for the Brazilian northeast region. These might be useful for wind power generation; for example, they could acquire important information on how the local wind potential can be usable for a possible wind power plant through understanding future wind speed values. To create the proposed hybrid models, it was necessary to set the wind speed variable as a dependent variable of exogenous variables (i.e., pressure, temperature, and precipitation). Thus, it was possible to consider the meteorological characteristics of the study regions. It is possible to verify the hybrid models' efficiency in providing perfect adjustments to the observed data. This statement is based on the low values found in the error statistical analysis, i.e., an error of approximately 5.0% and a Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient near to 0.96. These results were certainly important in predicting the wind speed time-series, which was similar to the observed wind speed time-series profile. Great similarities of maximums and minimums between the series were evident and showed the capacity of the models to represent the seasonality characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Successful adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical imaging requires medical professionals to understand underlying principles and techniques. However, educational offerings tailored to the need of medical professionals are scarce. To fill this gap, we created the course "AI for Doctors: Medical Imaging". An analysis of participants' opinions on AI and self-perceived skills rated on a five-point Likert scale was conducted before and after the course. The participants' attitude towards AI in medical imaging was very optimistic before and after the course. However, deeper knowledge of AI and the process for validating and deploying it resulted in significantly less overoptimism with respect to perceivable patient benefits through AI (p = 0.020). Self-assessed skill ratings significantly improved after the course, and the appreciation of the course content was very positive. However, we observed a substantial drop-out rate, mostly attributed to the lack of time of medical professionals. There is a high demand for educational offerings regarding AI in medical imaging among medical professionals, and better education may lead to a more realistic appreciation of clinical adoption. However, time constraints imposed by a busy clinical schedule need to be taken into account for successful education of medical professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]