Artificial Intelligence in Nuclear Medicine: Opportunities, Challenges, and Responsibilities Toward a Trustworthy Ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trustworthiness is a core tenet of medicine. The patient-physician relationship is evolving from a dyad to a broader ecosystem of health care. With the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, the elements of trust must be revisited. We envision a road map for the establishment of trustworthy AI ecosystems in nuclear medicine. In this report, AI is contextualized in the history of technologic revolutions. Opportunities for AI applications in nuclear medicine related to diagnosis, therapy, and workflow efficiency, as well as emerging challenges and critical responsibilities, are discussed. Establishing and maintaining leadership in AI require a concerted effort to promote the rational and safe deployment of this innovative technology by engaging patients, nuclear medicine physicians, scientists, technologists, and referring providers, among other stakeholders, while protecting our patients and society. This strategic plan was prepared by the AI task force of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
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 | 0.040 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".