The effect of an artificial intelligence algorithm on chest X-ray interpretation of radiology residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Chest X-rays are the most commonly performed diagnostic examinations. An artificial intelligence (AI) system that evaluates the images fast and accurately help reducing workflow and management of the patients. An automated assistant may reduce the time of interpretation in daily practice. We aim to investigate whether radiology residents consider the recommendations of an AI system for their final decisions, and to assess the diagnostic performances of the residents and the AI system. METHODS: Posteroanterior (PA) chest X-rays with confirmed diagnosis were evaluated by 10 radiology residents. After interpretation, the residents checked the evaluations of the AI Algorithm and made their final decisions. Diagnostic performances of the residents without AI and after checking the AI results were compared. RESULTS: 0.669 with AI support. The AI algorithm diagnostic accuracy, measured by the overall mean AUC, was 0.789. No significant difference was detected between decisions taken with and without the support of AI. CONCLUSION: Although, the AI algorithm diagnostic accuracy were higher than the residents, the radiology residents did not change their final decisions after reviewing AI recommendations. In order to benefit from these tools, the recommendations of the AI system must be more precise to the user. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This research provides information about the willingness or resistance of radiologists to work with AI technologies via diagnostic performance tests. It also shows the diagnostic performance of an existing AI algorithm, determined by real-life data.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".