Developing, Purchasing, Implementing and Monitoring AI Tools in Radiology: Practical Considerations. A Multi-Society Statement From the ACR, CAR, ESR, RANZCR & RSNA.

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 ever­growing 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 multi­society 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.

Leadership in Interventional Radiology - Fostering a Culture of Excellence.

This invited article reviews the current status of Interventional Radiology (IR), in terms of its status as a speciality, and outlines the conditions needed for IR to function optimally within healthcare settings. Guidance is offered in terms of developing an IR department, ensuring high-quality practice, dealing with administrative and political challenges, dealing with industry and creating a legacy.

Radiology in the Era of Value-based Healthcare: A Multi-Society Expert Statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, IS3R, RANZCR, and RSNA.

Background The Value-Based Healthcare (VBH) concept is designed to improve individual healthcare outcomes without increasing expenditure, and is increasingly being used to determine resourcing of and reimbursement for medical services. Radiology is a major contributor to patient and societal healthcare at many levels. Despite this, some VBH models do not acknowledge radiology's central role; this may have future negative consequences for resource allocation. Methods, findings and interpretation This multi-society paper, representing the views of Radiology Societies in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, describes the place of radiology in VBH models and the health-care value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

The vanishing radiologist-an unseen danger, and a danger of being unseen.

KEY POINTS: • Radiology has developed into a central and important part of patient care.• A combination of technological developments, increasing workload and radiologists' behaviour run the risk of diminishing the visibility of radiologists to referrers and patientsRadiology has developed into a central and important part of patient care.• It is vital for the successful future of radiology that we remain conscious of the need to maintain visibility of who we are and what we contribute to patient care.

May Measurement Month 2019: an analysis of blood pressure screening results from the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland.

In the UK, heart and circulatory diseases account for 29% of all deaths (14% through coronary heart disease and 8% through stroke). In 2015, the prevalence of hypertension was 20% in the UK and 23% in the Republic of Ireland. In 2019, 14% of people registered with a UK general practice had hypertension and yet it was the attributable risk factor for around half of all deaths from coronary heart disease or stroke. We participated in May Measurement Month 2019 to increase awareness of blood pressure (BP) measurement, and to identify the proportion of undiagnosed hypertension and degree of uncontrolled hypertension in the community. The 2019 campaign set up screening sites within the community at places of worship, supermarkets, GP surgeries, workplaces, charity events, community pharmacies, gyms, and various other public places. We screened 10194 participants (mean age 51 ± 18 years, 60% women) and found that 1013 (9.9%) were on antihypertensive treatment, while 3408 (33.4%) had hypertension. Of the 3408 participants with hypertension, only 33.5% were aware of their condition despite 98.8% having previous BP measurements. In those on antihypertensive medication, only 38.2% had controlled BP (<140 and <90 mmHg). Our UK and Republic of Ireland data demonstrate concerning levels of undiagnosed hypertension and sub-optimal BP control in many individuals with a diagnosis. This evidence supports a critical need for better systematic community and primary care screening initiatives.

Salt and cardiovascular disease: insufficient evidence to recommend low sodium intake.

Several blood pressure guidelines recommend low sodium intake (<2.3 g/day, 100 mmol, 5.8 g/day of salt) for the entire population, on the premise that reductions in sodium intake, irrespective of the levels, will lower blood pressure, and, in turn, reduce cardiovascular disease occurrence. These guidelines have been developed without effective interventions to achieve sustained low sodium intake in free-living individuals, without a feasible method to estimate sodium intake reliably in individuals, and without high-quality evidence that low sodium intake reduces cardiovascular events (compared with moderate intake). In this review, we examine whether the recommendation for low sodium intake, reached by current guideline panels, is supported by robust evidence. Our review provides a counterpoint to the current recommendation for low sodium intake and suggests that a specific low sodium intake target (e.g. <2.3 g/day) for individuals may be unfeasible, of uncertain effect on other dietary factors and of unproven effectiveness in reducing cardiovascular disease. We contend that current evidence, despite methodological limitations, suggests that most of the world's population consume a moderate range of dietary sodium (2.3-4.6g/day; 1-2 teaspoons of salt) that is not associated with increased cardiovascular risk, and that the risk of cardiovascular disease increases when sodium intakes exceed 5 g/day. While current evidence has limitations, and there are differences of opinion in interpretation of existing evidence, it is reasonable, based upon observational studies, to suggest a population-level mean target of <5 g/day in populations with mean sodium intake of >5 g/day, while awaiting the results of large randomized controlled trials of sodium reduction on incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality.

Radiology in the Era of Value-Based Healthcare: A Multi-Society Expert Statement From the ACR, CAR, ESR, IS3R, RANZCR, and RSNA.

BACKGROUND: The Value-Based Healthcare (VBH) concept is designed to improve individual healthcare outcomes without increasing expenditure, and is increasingly being used to determine resourcing of and reimbursement for medical services. Radiology is a major contributor to patient and societal healthcare at many levels. Despite this, some VBH models do not acknowledge radiology's central role; this may have future negative consequences for resource allocation. METHODS, FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION: This multi-society paper, representing the views of Radiology Societies in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, describes the place of radiology in VBH models and the health-care value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined.

Incidentalomas, SPEW, and VOMIT-radiological dyspepsia?

KEY POINTS: • Incidental findings are an inevitable part of radiology reporting.• Detection of incidental findings may be beneficial, but may result in unnecessary further investigation, and potential harm to patients.• Incidental findings should be reported in context, with an attempt to offer guidance as to their significance, and the need to investigate further.

COVID-19 patients and the radiology department - advice from the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the European Society of Thoracic Imaging (ESTI).

This document from the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the European Society of Thoracic Imaging (ESTI) aims to present the main imaging features, and the role of CT scan in the early diagnosis of COVID-19, describing, in particular, the typical findings which make it possible to identify the disease and distinguish it from bacterial causes of infection, and to define which category of patients may benefit from CT imaging. The precautions that must be taken when performing scans to protect radiologists and technologists from infection will be described. The organisational measures that can be taken within radiology departments in order to cope with the influx of patients, while continuing to manage other emergency and time-sensitive activity (e.g. oncology, other infectious diseases etc.), will be discussed. KEY POINTS: • Bilateral ground glass opacities are typical CT manifestations of COVID-19. • Crazy paving and organising pneumonia pattern are seen at a later stage. • Extensive consolidation is associated with a poor prognosis.

May Measurement Month 2018: an analysis of blood pressure screening results from the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

Raised blood pressure (BP) was the biggest contributor to the global burden of disease in 2017, with lack of awareness and adequate control of BP identified as the main drivers of this disease burden. In 2017, an opportunistic BP screening and awareness campaign called May Measurement Month (MMM) in the UK and Republic of Ireland (RoI) highlighted that levels of undiagnosed hypertension and uncontrolled hypertension in the community screened were approximately 23% and 40%, respectively. MMM18 was undertaken to further the campaign's efforts to increase awareness and create an evidence base of population risk associated with high BP. MMM18 BP screenings were conducted in the community at places of worship, supermarkets, GP surgeries, workplaces, community pharmacies, gyms, and various other public places. A total of 5000 volunteers, aged 47.3 (±17.2) years, 60% female were screened. Of all 5000 individuals screened, 1716 (34.3%) were hypertensive, of which only 51.3% were aware of their condition, 42.8% on antihypertensive treatment, and only 51.5% of those on medication controlled to target BP of <140/90 mmHg. Furthermore, obese, overweight, and underweight participants all had significantly higher BP values compared to individuals with a healthy body mass index (BMI). The 2018 MMM campaign in the UK and the RoI confirmed approximately one in three adults were hypertensive, with more than half having uncontrolled BP. In addition, these findings show that people with low BMI are at risk of having high BP. Finally, with only one in two people aware of their high BP, awareness remains a significant public health concern.

Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: Summary of the Joint European and North American Multisociety Statement.

This is a condensed summary of an international multisociety statement on ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology produced by the ACR, European Society of Radiology, RSNA, Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine, European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics, Canadian Association of Radiologists, and American Association of Physicists in Medicine. AI has great potential to increase efficiency and accuracy throughout radiology, but it also carries inherent pitfalls and biases. Widespread use of AI-based intelligent and autonomous systems in radiology can increase the risk of systemic errors with high consequence and highlights complex ethical and societal issues. Currently, there is little experience using AI for patient care in diverse clinical settings. Extensive research is needed to understand how to best deploy AI in clinical practice. This statement highlights our consensus that ethical use of AI in radiology should promote well-being, minimize harm, and ensure that the benefits and harms are distributed among stakeholders in a just manner. We believe AI should respect human rights and freedoms, including dignity and privacy. It should be designed for maximum transparency and dependability. Ultimate responsibility and accountability for AI remains with its human designers and operators for the foreseeable future. The radiology community should start now to develop codes of ethics and practice for AI that promote any use that helps patients and the common good and should block use of radiology data and algorithms for financial gain without those two attributes. This article is a simultaneous joint publication in Radiology, Journal of the American College of Radiology, Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal, and Insights into Imaging. Published under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

May Measurement Month 2017: an analysis of blood pressure screening results from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland-Europe.

Elevated blood pressure (BP), or hypertension, is a growing burden worldwide, leading to over 10 million deaths each year. May Measurement Month (MMM) is a global initiative aimed at raising awareness of high BP and acting as a stimulus to improving screening programmes worldwide. In the United Kingdom (UK) nearly 1 in 5 people, and in the Republic of Ireland (RoI) 3 out of 10, have hypertension, of which a large proportion remains undiagnosed. An opportunistic cross-sectional survey of volunteers aged ≥18 years was carried out in May 2017. Blood pressure measurement, the definition of hypertension and statistical analysis followed a standardized protocol. Screenings sites in hospitals, universities, shopping centres, workplaces, sports clubs, community centres, GP practices, and pharmacies were set up across the UK and RoI as part of this initiative. Seven thousand seven hundred and fourteen individuals were screened during MMM17. After multiple imputation, 3099 (40.3%) had hypertension. Of individuals not receiving antihypertensive medication, 1406 (23.4%) were hypertensive. Of individuals receiving antihypertensive medication, 682 (40.5%) had uncontrolled BP. MMM17 was the largest BP screening campaign ever undertaken in the UK and RoI. These data prove for the first time that a relatively inexpensive, volunteer based, convenience sampling of screening BP in the community identified two out of five individuals as hypertensive, with one in four not receiving treatment. Of major concern is that these data demonstrate that of those individuals receiving treatment, two out of five still did not have controlled BP.

Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: Summary of the Joint European and North American Multisociety Statement.

This is a condensed summary of an international multisociety statement on ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology produced by the ACR, European Society of Radiology, RSNA, Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine, European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics, Canadian Association of Radiologists, and American Association of Physicists in Medicine. AI has great potential to increase efficiency and accuracy throughout radiology, but it also carries inherent pitfalls and biases. Widespread use of AI-based intelligent and autonomous systems in radiology can increase the risk of systemic errors with high consequence and highlights complex ethical and societal issues. Currently, there is little experience using AI for patient care in diverse clinical settings. Extensive research is needed to understand how to best deploy AI in clinical practice. This statement highlights our consensus that ethical use of AI in radiology should promote well-being, minimize harm, and ensure that the benefits and harms are distributed among stakeholders in a just manner. We believe AI should respect human rights and freedoms, including dignity and privacy. It should be designed for maximum transparency and dependability. Ultimate responsibility and accountability for AI remains with its human designers and operators for the foreseeable future. The radiology community should start now to develop codes of ethics and practice for AI that promote any use that helps patients and the common good and should block use of radiology data and algorithms for financial gain without those two attributes.

A gender-sensitised weight loss and healthy living programme for overweight and obese men delivered by Scottish Premier League football clubs (FFIT): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of male obesity is increasing but few men take part in weight loss programmes. We assessed the effect of a weight loss and healthy living programme on weight loss in football (soccer) fans. METHODS: We did a two-group, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial of 747 male football fans aged 35-65 years with a body-mass index (BMI) of 28 kg/m(2) or higher from 13 Scottish professional football clubs. Participants were randomly assigned with SAS (version 9·2, block size 2-9) in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by club, to a weight loss programme delivered by community coaching staff in 12 sessions held every week. The intervention group started a weight loss programme within 3 weeks, and the comparison group were put on a 12 month waiting list. All participants received a weight management booklet. Primary outcome was mean difference in weight loss between groups at 12 months, expressed as absolute weight and a percentage of their baseline weight. Primary outcome assessment was masked. Analyses were based on intention to treat. The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN32677491. FINDINGS: 374 men were allocated to the intervention group and 374 to the comparison group. 333 (89%) of the intervention group and 355 (95%) of the comparison group completed 12 month assessments. At 12 months the mean difference in weight loss between groups, adjusted for baseline weight and club, was 4·94 kg (95% CI 3·95-5·94) and percentage weight loss, similarly adjusted, was 4·36% (3·64-5·08), both in favour of the intervention (p<0·0001). Eight serious adverse events were reported, five in the intervention group (lost consciousness due to drugs for pre-existing angina, gallbladder removal, hospital admission with suspected heart attack, ruptured gut, and ruptured Achilles tendon) and three in the comparison group (transient ischaemic attack, and two deaths). Of these, two adverse events were reported as related to participation in the programme (gallbladder removal and ruptured Achilles tendon). INTERPRETATION: The FFIT programme can help a large proportion of men to lose a clinically important amount of weight; it offers one effective strategy to challenge male obesity. FUNDING: Scottish Government and The UK Football Pools funded delivery of the programme through a grant to the Scottish Premier League Trust. The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research Programme funded the assessment (09/3010/06).