Artificial Intelligence: reshaping the practice of radiological sciences in the 21st century
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in computing hardware and software platforms have led to the recent resurgence in artificial intelligence (AI) touching almost every aspect of our daily lives by its capability for automating complex tasks or providing superior predictive analytics. AI applications are currently spanning many diverse fields from economics to entertainment, to manufacturing, as well as medicine. Since modern AI's inception decades ago, practitioners in radiological sciences have been pioneering its development and implementation in medicine, particularly in areas related to diagnostic imaging and therapy. In this anniversary article, we embark on a journey to reflect on the learned lessons from past AI's chequered history. We further summarize the current status of AI in radiological sciences, highlighting, with examples, its impressive achievements and effect on re-shaping the practice of medical imaging and radiotherapy in the areas of computer-aided detection, diagnosis, prognosis, and decision support. Moving beyond the commercial hype of AI into reality, we discuss the current challenges to overcome, for AI to achieve its promised hope of providing better precision healthcare for each patient while reducing cost burden on their families and the society at large.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it