The Use of Artificial Intelligence and Deep Learning in Medical Imaging: A Nationwide Survey of Trainees in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence is dramatically transforming medical imaging. We assessed the levels of artificial intelligence use among radiology trainees and explored their perceived impact of artifi-cial intelligence on the radiology workflow and radiology profession, in correlation with the perceived ease of use and behavioral intention to use artificial intelligence. This cross-sectional study enrolled radiology trainees from Saudi Arabia, and an online 5-part-structured question-naire was disseminated via online networks to trainee in July 2021. We included 98 participants (51 male; age 27.59±2.02 years). Level of use was low; few used it in routine practice (7%). The impact of artificial intelligence on the radiology workflow was positively perceived in all radi-ology workflow steps (3.64–3.97 out of 5). A positive impact on the radiology profession was more frequently perceived for technical and performance aspects (81%–85%) compared with prestige and legal aspects (64%–71%). Perceived ease of use and behavioral intention to use arti-ficial intelligence was associated with the current professional activity, level of use artificial in-telligence use, and perceived impact on the profession as well as on radiology workflow (p<0.05). Levels of artificial intelligence use in radiology are very low. The perceived positive impact of ar-tificial intelligence on radiology workflow and profession is correlated with an increase in be-havioral intention to use artificial intelligence. Thus, increasing awareness about the favorable impact can improve the behavioral use.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".