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.

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 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 • The incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiological practice demands increased monitoring of its utility and safety.• Cooperation between developers, clinicians, and regulators will allow all involved to address ethical issues and monitor AI performance.• AI can fulfil its promise to advance patient well-being if all steps from development to integration in healthcare are rigorously evaluated.

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 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.

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 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.

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

Responsible AI practice and AI education are central to AI implementation: a rapid review for all medical imaging professionals in Europe.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has transitioned from the lab to the bedside, and it is increasingly being used in healthcare. Radiology and Radiography are on the frontline of AI implementation, because of the use of big data for medical imaging and diagnosis for different patient groups. Safe and effective AI implementation requires that responsible and ethical practices are upheld by all key stakeholders, that there is harmonious collaboration between different professional groups, and customised educational provisions for all involved. This paper outlines key principles of ethical and responsible AI, highlights recent educational initiatives for clinical practitioners and discusses the synergies between all medical imaging professionals as they prepare for the digital future in Europe. Responsible and ethical AI is vital to enhance a culture of safety and trust for healthcare professionals and patients alike. Educational and training provisions for medical imaging professionals on AI is central to the understanding of basic AI principles and applications and there are many offerings currently in Europe. Education can facilitate the transparency of AI tools, but more formalised, university-led training is needed to ensure the academic scrutiny, appropriate pedagogy, multidisciplinarity and customisation to the learners' unique needs are being adhered to. As radiographers and radiologists work together and with other professionals to understand and harness the benefits of AI in medical imaging, it becomes clear that they are faced with the same challenges and that they have the same needs. The digital future belongs to multidisciplinary teams that work seamlessly together, learn together, manage risk collectively and collaborate for the benefit of the patients they serve.

The QuADRANT study: Current status and recommendations for improving uptake and implementation of clinical audit of medical radiological procedures in Europe. The radiotherapy perspective.

BACKGROUND: QuADRANT was a research project funded by the European Commission to evaluate clinical audit uptake and implementation across Europe, with an emphasis on clinical audit as mandated within the BSSD (Basic Safety Standards Directive). AIM: Focusing on the QuADRANT objectives - to obtain an overview of European clinical audit activity; identify good practices, resources, barriers and challenges; provide guidance and recommendations going forwards; identify the potential for European Union action on quality and safety focusing on the field of radiotherapy. RESULTS: A pan-European survey, expert interviews and a literature review conducted within the framework of the QuADRANT project indicated that developments in national clinical audit infrastructure are required. While in radiotherapy, there is a strong tradition and high level of experience of dosimetry audits and well-established practice through the IAEA's QUATRO audits, few countries have a well-established comprehensive clinical audit programme or international/national initiatives on tumour specific clinical audits. Even if sparse, the experience from countries with established system of quality audits can be used as role-models for national professional societies to promote clinical audit implementation. However, resource allocation and national prioritisation of clinical audit are needed in many countries. National and international societies should take the initiative to promote and facilitate training and resources (guidelines, experts, courses) for clinical audits. Enablers used to enhance clinical audit participation are not widely employed. Development of hospital accreditation programmes can facilitate clinical audit uptake. An active and formalised role for patients in clinical audit practice and policy development is recommended. Because there is a persisting variation in European awareness of BSSD clinical audit requirements, work is needed to improve dissemination of information on the legislative requirements relating to clinical audit in the BSSD and in relation to inspection processes. The aim is to ensure these include clinical audit and that they encompass all clinics and specialties involved in medical applications using ionising radiation. CONCLUSION: QuADRANT provided an overarching view of clinical audit practice in Europe, with all its related aspects. Unfortunately, it showed that the awareness of the BSSD requirements for clinical audit are highly variable. Therefore, there is an urgent need to dedicate efforts towards ensuring that regulatory inspections also incorporate an assessment of clinical audit program(s), affecting all aspects of clinical work and specialties involved in patient exposure to ionising radiation.

QuADRANT: a study on uptake and implementation of clinical audit of medical radiological procedures in Europe-expert recommendations for improvement, endorsed by the ESR.

BACKGROUND: QuADRANT was a study funded by the European Commission to evaluate clinical audit uptake and implementation across Europe, with an emphasis on clinical audit as mandated within the BSSD (Basic Safety Standards Directive). AIMS: QuADRANT objectives-obtain an overview of European clinical audit activity; identify good practices and resources, barriers and challenges; provide guidance and recommendations going forwards; identify the potential for European Union action on quality and safety in the three core project specialties, radiology, radiotherapy and nuclear medicine. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: QuADRANT identified that developments in national clinical audit infrastructure are required. National professional societies can be pivotal in improving clinical audit implementation, but resource allocation and national prioritisation of clinical audit are needed in many countries. Lack of staff time and expertise are also barriers. Enablers to enhance clinical audit participation are not widely employed. Development of hospital accreditation programmes can facilitate clinical audit uptake. An active and formalised role for patients in clinical audit practice and policy development is recommended. There is persisting variation in European awareness of BSSD clinical audit requirements. Work is needed to improve dissemination of information on the legislative requirements relating to clinical audit in the BSSD and in relation to inspection processes to ensure these include clinical audit and that they encompass all clinics and specialties involved in medical applications using ionising radiation. CONCLUSION: QuADRANT provides an important step towards enhancing clinical audit uptake and implementation across Europe and improving patient safety and outcomes.

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.

Justification of CT practices across Europe: results of a survey of national competent authorities and radiology societies.

OBJECTIVES: Published literature on justification of computed tomography (CT) examinations in Europe is sparse but demonstrates consistent sub-optimal application. As part of the EU initiated CT justification project, this work set out to capture CT justification practices across Europe. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire consisting of mostly closed multiple-choice questions was distributed to national competent authorities and to presidents of European radiology societies in EU member states as well as Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and the UK (n = 31). RESULTS: Fifty-one results were received from 30 European countries. Just 47% (n = 24) stated that advance justification of individual CT examinations is performed by a medical practitioner. Radiologists alone mostly (n = 27, 53%) perform daily justification of CT referrals although this is a shared responsibility in many countries. Imaging referral guidelines are widely available although just 13% (n = 6) consider them in daily use. Four countries (Cyprus, Ireland, Sweden, UK) reported having them embedded within clinical decision support systems. Justification of new practices with CT is mostly regulated (77%) although three countries (Belgium, Iceland and Portugal) reported not having any national system in place for generic justification. Health screening with CT was reported by seven countries as part of approved screening programmes and by eight countries outside. When performed, CT justification audits were reported to improve CT justification rates. CONCLUSIONS: CT justification practices vary across Europe with less than 50% using advance justification and a minority having clinical decision support systems in place. CT for health screening purposes is not currently widely used in Europe.

Online teaching in radiology as a pilot model for modernizing medical education: results of an international study in cooperation with the ESR.

BACKGROUND: Due to the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it proved necessary to rapidly change medical education from on-site to online teaching. Thus, medical educators were forced to rethink the purpose of teaching and the best form of transmission of knowledge. In cooperation with the European Society of Radiology (ESR), we investigated the attitudes of radiologists in Europe and North America toward innovative online teaching concepts. METHODS: In total, 224 radiologists from 31 different countries participated in our cross-sectional, web-based survey study. On a 7-point Likert scale, participants had to answer 27 questions about the online teaching situation before/during the pandemic, technical and social aspects of online teaching and the future role of online teaching in radiology. RESULTS: An overwhelming majority stated that radiology is particularly well-suited for online teaching (91%), that online teaching should play a more prominent role after the pandemic (73%) and that lecturers should be familiar with online teaching techniques (89%). Difficulties include a higher workload in preparing online courses (59%), issues with motivating students to follow online courses (56%) and the risk of social isolation (71%). Before the pandemic, only 12% of teaching was provided online; for the future, our participants deemed a proportion of approximately 50% online teaching appropriate. CONCLUSION: Our participants are open-minded about online teaching in radiology. As the best way of transferring knowledge in medical education is still unclear, online teaching offers potential for innovation in radiology education. To support online teaching development, a structured, framework-based "online curriculum" should be established.

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.

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 healthcare value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined.

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.